Lds Church Joins Religious Coalition In Opposing Obamacare Mandate

[Scott Lloyd]

Very simple. I'm allowing all to believe as they want. What I'm not doing is saying that all must do as I believe. IE; The ACA doesn't require anyone to take birth control or not take birth control. It simply allows people through their insurance company to buy birth control if they want to.

And in the process forces employers who are against it as a matter of conscience to pay for it. How is this any different from the prostitution example I provided above other than the fact that prostitution has not (yet) been legalized and not (yet) been deemed an essential service that any employer must provide whether or not the employer is opposed to it on moral grounds?

[thesometimesaint]

And in the process forces employers who are against it as a matter of conscience to pay for it. How is this any different from the prostitution example I provided above other than the fact that prostitution has not (yet) been legalized and not (yet) been deemed an essential service that any employer must provide whether or not the employer is opposed to it on moral grounds?

If your employer was personally morally opposed to you getting needed open heart surgery, and the insurance company agreed to pay for it. Would you be defending your employer?

[Calm]

What I'm not doing is saying that all must do as I believe.

Neither was I so you didn't answer my question, in my opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

If your employer was personally morally opposed to you getting needed open heart surgery, and the insurance company agreed to pay for it. Would you be defending your employer?

Despite the fact that you have evaded my question, I shall endeavor to answer yours.

1. If for some bizarre reason the employer was morally opposed to open-heart surgery, it's highly unlikely that he would be offering as a benefit to his employees an insurance package that covered it. And no, I don't see him as morally obligated to offer such an insurance package. In a free-market economy, employees are free to seek out an employer that does provide such a package, and the employer who refuses to provide such a package possibly suffers the consequence of not being able to recruit the employees he desires.

2. Unlike open-heart surgery, which is a remedial measure for a life-threatening condition, birth control is preventive.

3. In most cases, what the birth control is intended to prevent is not a condition of life-threatening or debilitating illness. Rather, it is intended to prevent consequences from pleasure-seeking. In that regard, it is far more like the prostitution-on-demand example I gave than to the open-heart surgery example you gave.

Now then, as the question I posed to you stands unanswered, I will repeat it for your convenience:

Ombamacare, as currently constituted, would force employers who are against birth control as a matter of conscience to pay for providing it. How is this any different from the prostitution example I provided above other than the fact that prostitution has not (yet) been legalized and not (yet) been deemed an essential service that any employer must provide whether or not the employer is opposed to it on moral grounds?

[Scott Lloyd]

Very simple. I'm allowing all to believe as they want. What I'm not doing is saying that all must do as I believe. IE; The ACA doesn't require anyone to take birth control or not take birth control. It simply allows people through their insurance company to buy birth control if they want to.

It forces employers to provide (and pay for) insurance that covers it.

And by your advocating such coercion, it is you, not faith groups, who are endeavoring to force your beliefs on others.

[thesometimesaint]

Despite the fact that you have evaded my question, I shall endeavor to answer yours.

1. If for some bizarre reason the employer was morally opposed to open-heart surgery, it's highly unlikely that he would be offering as a benefit to his employees an insurance package that covered it. And no, I don't see him as morally obligated to offer such an insurance package. In a free-market economy, employees are free to seek out an employer that does provide such a package, and the employer who refuses to provide such a package possibly stands to incur disadvantages by not being able to recruit the employees he desires.

2. Unlike open-heart surgery, which is a remedial measure for a life-threatening condition, birth control is preventive.

3. In most cases, what the birth control is intended to prevent is not a condition of life-threatening or debilitating illness. Rather, it is intended to prevent consequences from pleasure-seeking. In that regard, it is far more like the prostitution-on-demand example I gave than to the open-heart surgery example you gave.

Now then, as the question I posed to you stands unanswered, I will repeat it for your convenience:

Ombamacare, as currently constituted, would force employers who are against birth control as a matter of conscience to pay for providing it. How is this any different from the prostitution example I provided above other than the fact that prostitution has not (yet) been legalized and not (yet) been deemed an essential service that any employer must provide whether or not the employer is opposed to it on moral grounds?

Your first argument is a Reductio ad absurdum.

1. Companies are forced by law to abide by the law. IE; If you are an employer you can't claim that it's against your morality to install safety doors on your place of business. Moreover; It has never been a free market economy. Some regulation is needed to prevent the excesses of the market. Requiring insurance is just a type of regulation.

2. Since when is it your place to determine what is needed for someone else?

3. So what? Birth control is a perfectly legal option. Even the Mormon Church recognizes that the decision on the number and spacing of their children is between the couple and their God. The Pill is just a highly effective and convenient means of doing that.

Driving a car serves the main purpose of getting me where and when I want to go. I also find driving a car enjoyable. The state requires that I have insurance if I want to drive on the public roads. My insurance company is willing to pay me in case of an accident even if I'm at fault. What business is it of yours to demand that I am not entitled to that insurance, even if you were my employer? BTW states set the minimum requirements for car insurance all the time. Health insurance is no different. Whether I avail myself of it in a claim, or not, is none of your, or my employers, business. True freedom of religion allows for nothing less.

4. So what? The law also forces an employer to pay his employees regardless of that employers moral objections. You have an absolute moral right to swing your arm, but that moral right ends at my nose.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your first argument is a Reductio ad absurdum.

Precisely. That's what I was going for. Do you think reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy? It's not. According to Wikipedia, it's "a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,^[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It can be a very effective technique. In this case I demonstrate that your position lacks validity by showing "that a false, untenable or absurd result" (theoretically forcing employers to provide prostitution services for their employees) follows from its acceptance.

1. Companies are forced by law to abide by the law. IE; If you are an employer you can't claim that it's against your morality to install safety doors on your place of business.

Not every law or proposed law is good. That's precisely the point at issue here. I maintain that it is not a good law that forces an employer to fund a worker's freedom from consequences for that worker's pleasure seeking.

We can seek to change or resist the enactment of laws that are not good. That's part of the political process.

Moreover; It has never been a free market economy. Some regulation is needed to prevent the excesses of the market.

It may not be an unregulated economy, but it is definitely a free-market economy.

Requiring insurance is just a type of regulation.

Not every kind of regulation is necessary, good, useful or desirable. Surely you can see that. And even if we accept the assertion that federal requirement of insurance is necessary, that still does not bind us to believe it is good to require an employer to provide birth control on demand for his employees or to do other things that he finds morally objectionable.

2. Since when is it your place to determine what is needed for someone else?

I am an American citizen and have the right to participate in the public dialogue about that very question -- as are the faith groups who have publicly opposed the portion of Obamacare that we are discussing right now. In a democratic society, where the people make decisions about government, we have to make just such evaluations as this when it comes to government.

3. So what? Birth control is a perfectly legal option.

That doesn't mean an employer should be forced to pay for it.

Even the Mormon Church recognizes that the decision on the number and spacing of their children is between the couple and their God.

The Church of Jesus Christ (I prefer to use that as the shortened form of the name instead of "Mormon Church") does not advocate requiring an employer to pay for an employee having birth control on demand. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ, by signing on with this coalition of faith groups, opposes that very thing.

I don't see the relevance of your statement here about what the Church recognizes pertaining to birth control.

The Pill is just a highly effective and convenient means of doing that.

Irrelevant. We're discussing whether the government should force an employer to pay for it.

Driving a car serves the main purpose of getting me where and when I want to go. I also find driving a car enjoyable. The state requires that I have insurance if I want to drive on the public roads. My insurance company is willing to pay me in case of an accident even if I'm at fault.

Does the federal government force your employer to pay for your car insurance? It doesn't mine.

What business is it of yours to demand that I am not entitled to that insurance, even if you were my employer?

It's very much my business as a U.S. citizen to have a say as to whether the government should force employers to pay for it. Especially when it pertains to something like birth control, which some faith groups oppose as a matter of conscience. Then it gets into the very dangerous area of government infringing on the free exercise of religion, one of the pillars of the First Amendment.

BTW states set the minimum requirements for car insurance all the time. Health insurance is no different. Whether I avail myself of it in a claim, or not, is none of your, or my employers, business.

State's don't make your employer fund your car insurance. That's your responsiblity.

True freedom of religion allows for nothing less.

You have a tortured concept of freedom of religion, apparently driven by a sense of entitlement. Freedom of religion is violated when the government forces an employer to give an employee something that is against the employer's faith or religious conscience. Let the employee pay for it himself or find someone else who will. Freedom and liberty do not equate to entitlement.

4. So what? The law also forces an employer to pay his employees regardless of that employers moral objections.

This makes no sense. If an employer didn't want to pay employees, he wouldn't hire them in the first place. If he didn't pay them, they wouldn't work for him.

The government doesn't force him to hire employees. Neither should it force him to give them something to which he objects on moral grounds.

You have an absolute moral right to swing your arm, but that moral right ends at my nose.

Forcing -- or trying to have the government force -- your employer to fund your birth control on demand or to do something else that violates his conscience is punching your employer squarely in the nose.

[EllenMaksoud]

UT doesn't have said law. You can go helmetless. Though personally I think it's an underhanded thumbs up to evolution. Survival of the smartest and all that. A better law to make the point with would probably be alcohol age restrictions.

As for the OP, I'm not super enthused. I don't have a firm grip on either side of the argument about this, but my gut reaction and what little I have read is definitely not in line with what is signed by the presiding bishop. If health care is being provided I don't feel like it's a religion's business to decided what can be available to an individual employee. I would take more issue if, say, the religious institutions were being forced to provide those services directly. Until then I feel that this is overblown.

With luv,

BD

It almost seems like the vocal and angry in my Ward are Republicans, and the Democrats are the enemy. I remain completely unaffiliated. When people speak with anger, I just run, not wishing to hear another angry word. I just wish that someone would clearly, and unemotionally state the facts with Obama care. I think that everyone should have health care, and that those with self destructive habits should pay more. There should be compassionate ways of dealing with these habits. Just take a casual look at whose care takes the most money. Hmmmm, this is going to get me yelled at.

I have not met anyone who seems happy with their care, whether it be Kaiser, Blue Cross, Providence, or the Veterans Administration. Why can we not get at the real issues and fix them?

[strappinglad]

Is it just the birth control/abortion issue that is raising the ire of FBOs? How many other issues are waiting to be served? How about the drug addicts? Could employers be required to pay for medical marijuana ?(yes) , methadone treatment? (yes) prescription addiction rehab? (yes) How about an addiction to Big Macs and Big Gulps and Big ( pick your favorite chocolate bar)?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it just the birth control/abortion issue that is raising the ire of FBOs? How many other issues are waiting to be served? How about the drug addicts? Could employers be required to pay for medical marijuana ?(yes) , methadone treatment? (yes) prescription addiction rehab? (yes) How about an addiction to Big Macs and Big Gulps and Big ( pick your favorite chocolate bar)?

Yes, the entitlement mentality has beset us for a good long while. Now it's beginning to encroach upon religious liberty. It's high time to rein it in.

[Sleeper Cell]

It almost seems like the vocal and angry in my Ward are Republicans, and the Democrats are the enemy. I remain completely unaffiliated. When people speak with anger, I just run, not wishing to hear another angry word. I just wish that someone would clearly, and unemotionally state the facts with Obama care. I think that everyone should have health care, and that those with self destructive habits should pay more. There should be compassionate ways of dealing with these habits. Just take a casual look at whose care takes the most money. Hmmmm, this is going to get me yelled at.

Why? As a “vocal and angry Republican,” I pretty much agree with you (including your critique of us vocal and angry Republicans). Even those of us who are on the side of the (political) angels need to be called to repentance; even “the enemy” are still our brothers and sisters. One of the things we need is to develop and cultivate the ability to occasionally laugh at ourselves. “The enemy” might also give this some thought.

I have not met anyone who seems happy with their care, whether it be Kaiser, Blue Cross, Providence, or the Veterans Administration. Why can we not get at the real issues and fix them?

For one thing, these day we don’t seem to be able to agree on what the real issues are.

[EllenMaksoud]

Why? As a “vocal and angry Republican,” I pretty much agree with you (including your critique of us vocal and angry Republicans). Even those of us who are on the side of the (political) angels need to be called to repentance; even “the enemy” are still our brothers and sisters. One of the things we need is to develop and cultivate the ability to occasionally laugh at ourselves. “The enemy” might also give this some thought.

For one thing, these day we don’t seem to be able to agree on what the real issues are.

Thank you so much for not yelling at me. I will admit that at times I just "ain't right in the haid". Previous to being taken captive of the Mormons, there was much violence and anger around me. Now days, it is amazing that I can have an opinion and not get beat.

Sometimes I worry that one of the reasons that some get so incensed at Obama is that he is black. I've lived with lots of different races and feel that we are all God's children, though some are pretty delinquent. To be clear I look like a Chetznian, and not an exotic one either.

I think that one of the main issues with health care is the fact that some Americans sue just about everyone, looking to get rich. Oh, and having been married to a Medical person, do I have the horror stories, let me tell you. Another thing that drives the cost of health care up is the price fixing by drug and medical equipment manufacturers. Finally, people who are purposefully unhealthy are a burden. I got to 210 lbs, and my Doctor yelled at me saying, if I gained 10 more pounds I would be diabetic. It only took me two months living in terror to shave off 40 lbs.

[Calm]

Another thing that drives the cost of health care up is the price fixing by drug and medical equipment manufacturers.

OTOH, because of the price fixing by the government on at least some drugs up in Canada, there were some that the drug companies never bothered to market up there because they figured they couldn't cover their costs for testing it even when it was a major drug. There was one I had to order it from the states. Apparently you can get it now it's generic.

[Calm]

It only took me two months living in terror to shave off 40 lbs.

I wish terror worked for me, I put on 50 lbs with one drug and have yet to be able to figure out how to pull it off no matter what I threaten myself or am threatened with (I know it was the drug because I wasn't gaining weight before or after it and compulsive behaviour including eating is listed as one of its side effects.....I guess putting on weight is better than losing your house due to gambling though, I won't make such excuses with the other weight I put on with the last baby and haven't been able to take more than half of it off since even if it's been over 20 years...that I'll blame on my sleep disorder...well, at least in part...sleep deprivation being tied to obesity and many other health issues...so one can die from lack of sleep contrary to popular thought).

It is unfortunate how many drugs out there do have the side effect of weight gain for people, especially since they are often needed more as someone gets older and gets less active and their body slows down not needing as much food and thus all conspires against them in that category. I remember what a big thing Prozac was when it first appeared because it was advertised as only anti-depressant one actually could lose weight with rather than gain it...suddenly there were a lot more depressed people out there (even though the average weight loss with it was only 8 lbs and this was later found, IIRC, not to be accurate and some people will gain weight with it though less likely than other antidepressants). My dad now, for the first time in his life, due to having pain with his hip and knees is having weight issues...but he can still pull it off faster than Mom who has always had problems even though she eats the healthiest and least of anyone I know and has always tried to have a consistent exercise program of walking a hour a day or more plus other stuff (she almost died from a burst appendix when she was a kid and has had other medical issues that may have left her with a slower or more prone to weight gain metabolism if she wasn't born with it..her mom and her mom's family didn't have a problem...Grandma looked great till the day she died even if she was crazy, but her brothers and dad did, but even when Mom spends hours a day walking and exercising she can't burn off the weight...maybe because too many of her central core muscles were damaged in the various surgeries she had...her stomach looks like a battlefield...come to think of it Mom's always been a light sleeper so maybe sleep deprivation is her issue as well, hadn't though of it before because I got the rls from my dad)

Okay, too much information about my mom probably, but I just wanted to make the point that just because someone is overweight doesn't mean they aren't doing all they can and haven't been doing all they can to get it off, though I agree that probably the majority out there could if they were able to ignore the supersize commercials and weren't chained behind a desk.

[BlueDreams]

It almost seems like the vocal and angry in my Ward are Republicans, and the Democrats are the enemy. I remain completely unaffiliated. When people speak with anger, I just run, not wishing to hear another angry word. I just wish that someone would clearly, and unemotionally state the facts with Obama care. I think that everyone should have health care, and that those with self destructive habits should pay more. There should be compassionate ways of dealing with these habits. Just take a casual look at whose care takes the most money. Hmmmm, this is going to get me yelled at.

I have not met anyone who seems happy with their care, whether it be Kaiser, Blue Cross, Providence, or the Veterans Administration. Why can we not get at the real issues and fix them?

No, more like chuckled at. My family could fit that fairly well. In fact a couple of us had a "heated" debate on FB about it. I didn't mean to get involved, I prefer to avoid/ignore political commentary. But I'm a sucker for accuracy in criticism (My main problem isn't criticism in the candidacy but the level of vitriol and accuracy while doing so). If you're accurate in basic fact/presentation I could care less....but they were very much not accurate to the point of leaning towards conspiracy and paranoia and they'd tagged me in it. So I to the bait. What I find most (entertaining) and frankly disturbing is the speed in which a disagreement in facts and politics can quickly devolve into character assassinations. And sure enough mutual friends of my Aunt began questioning my intelligent, naivete, age (I look very young), etc. It made me chuckle because my mom and my aunt found themselves between a rock and a hard place, defending me (they're a little proud of me and we're loyal peeps ) and not defending my position. Was still not as bad as the last time I succumbed and the person began to question what I taught/did on my mission.

But though within the faith, I see similarly. I don't think that the left is without their own lists of character stereotypes/assasinations. And it's this complete incapacity to dialogue and discuss and work with each other that to me is the culprit to much of our current political messes and the reason, whether the prez is republican or democrat, it will continue until we can find the needed lesson of civility, compromise, and balance in representative positions.

It's also why I'm not as enthused with politics as I used to be. It seems more like a game of watching the titanic sink and all the people on board can do is argue and insist the use of a certain life boat while sabotaging and throwing out what they see as competitive sources. Why can't we get at the real issues? - pride and vanity and immobility and greed. That's my answer.

With luv,

BD

[EllenMaksoud]

I wish terror worked for me, I put on 50 lbs with one drug and have yet to be able to figure out how to pull it off no matter what I threaten myself or am threatened with (I know it was the drug because I wasn't gaining weight before or after it and compulsive behaviour including eating is listed as one of its side effects.....I guess putting on weight is better than losing your house due to gambling though, I won't make such excuses with the other weight I put on with the last baby and haven't been able to take more than half of it off since even if it's been over 20 years...that I'll blame on my sleep disorder...well, at least in part...sleep deprivation being tied to obesity and many other health issues...so one can die from lack of sleep contrary to popular thought).

It is unfortunate how many drugs out there do have the side effect of weight gain for people, especially since they are often needed more as someone gets older and gets less active and their body slows down not needing as much food and thus all conspires against them in that category. I remember what a big thing Prozac was when it first appeared because it was advertised as only anti-depressant one actually could lose weight with rather than gain it...suddenly there were a lot more depressed people out there (even though the average weight loss with it was only 8 lbs and this was later found, IIRC, not to be accurate and some people will gain weight with it though less likely than other antidepressants). My dad now, for the first time in his life, due to having pain with his hip and knees is having weight issues...but he can still pull it off faster than Mom who has always had problems even though she eats the healthiest and least of anyone I know and has always tried to have a consistent exercise program of walking a hour a day or more plus other stuff (she almost died from a burst appendix when she was a kid and has had other medical issues that may have left her with a slower or more prone to weight gain metabolism if she wasn't born with it..her mom and her mom's family didn't have a problem...Grandma looked great till the day she died even if she was crazy, but her brothers and dad did, but even when Mom spends hours a day walking and exercising she can't burn off the weight...maybe because too many of her central core muscles were damaged in the various surgeries she had...her stomach looks like a battlefield...come to think of it Mom's always been a light sleeper so maybe sleep deprivation is her issue as well, hadn't though of it before because I got the rls from my dad)

Okay, too much information about my mom probably, but I just wanted to make the point that just because someone is overweight doesn't mean they aren't doing all they can and haven't been doing all they can to get it off, though I agree that probably the majority out there could if they were able to ignore the supersize commercials and weren't chained behind a desk.

I was on a steroid drug for a month that relieved my symptoms of Fibromialgia. At the time I was less than 150lbs. He refused to give me more because it would cause dramatic weight gain. Later after 911 I was on Celexa and a whole constellation of other drugs and puffed up like a balloon. I only take a bit of Trazidone now and have gotten down to 170 and then slipped back to 185, so I well understand the struggle to keep weight off. It is hard to be active enough to lose the weight because the pain comes if I do too much.

In my own mind, I m still 17 and my body should follow suit.

[jwhitlock]

I find the church's opposition to the ObamaCare mandate interesting in light of the following quote by Elder Maxwell:

When the spirit teaches prophets the truth of things as they really are, this includes sensitizing these special men to the implication of what is just beginning, implications that are imperceptible to others. Prophets are alerted to tiny trends that bode ill for mankind. Prophets therefore are the Lord’s early warning system: they both detect and decry at His direction. What may seem to be a premature expression of prophetic concern is actually the early discovery of a difficulty that will later plague the people… prophets are, literally and figuratively, set apart from society so that they can better gauge impending problems, helping those who will either cease and desist from that which is wrong or prepare for that which is about to be. (Things as They Really Are, 1980, P. 77-7)

Those who continue to dismiss concerns about where all of this is clearly headed need to explain why, when the church and prophets speak out against such trends in society, they instead take society's side and parrot the rationalizations of entitlement that are so clearly in fashion today. Increasing government mandates are an encroachment upon not only our religious freedom, but our agency in general. I find it troubling that so many members of the church are trying to rationalize their support of worldly causes by dismissing the church's warnings as (take your pick) bigoted, outdated, out of touch, uncaring, irrelevant, unloving, stepping outside of its bounds, or (my personal favorite) in contradiction to their own shallow interpretations of scripture.

Again, I welcome this additional direction from the church on the dangers of where all this is headed. And I reject dismissive claims - without evidence - that it's some kind of "leap" to take a look at the clear trends of where these mandates are going and their very likely negative effect on us all over time.

[EllenMaksoud]

No, more like chuckled at. My family could fit that fairly well. In fact a couple of us had a "heated" debate on FB about it. I didn't mean to get involved, I prefer to avoid/ignore political commentary. But I'm a sucker for accuracy in criticism (My main problem isn't criticism in the candidacy but the level of vitriol and accuracy while doing so). If you're accurate in basic fact/presentation I could care less....but they were very much not accurate to the point of leaning towards conspiracy and paranoia and they'd tagged me in it. So I to the bait. What I find most (entertaining) and frankly disturbing is the speed in which a disagreement in facts and politics can quickly devolve into character assassinations. And sure enough mutual friends of my Aunt began questioning my intelligent, naivete, age (I look very young), etc. It made me chuckle because my mom and my aunt found themselves between a rock and a hard place, defending me (they're a little proud of me and we're loyal peeps ) and not defending my position. Was still not as bad as the last time I succumbed and the person began to question what I taught/did on my mission.

But though within the faith, I see similarly. I don't think that they left is without their own lists of character stereotypes/assasinations. And it's this complete incapacity to dialogue and discuss and work with each other that to me is the culprit to much of our current political messes and the reason, whether the prez is republican or democrat, it will continue until we can find the needed lesson of civility, compromise, and balance in representative positions.

It's also why I'm not as enthused with politics as I used to be. It seems more like a game of watching the titanic sink and all the people on board can do is argue and insist the use of a certain life boat while sabotaging and throwing out what they see as competitive sources. Why can't we get at the real issues? - pride and vanity and immobility and greed. That's my answer.

With luv,

BD

Yes, and we actually pay these people to govern us. Sometime, if you have nothing better to do, just look up how many congress and house of representative people are under prosecution for all sorts of evil. Maybe Romney not winning was an act of mercy on the part of Heavenly Father?

[EllenMaksoud]

I find the church's opposition to the ObamaCare mandate interesting in light of the following quote by Elder Maxwell:

When the spirit teaches prophets the truth of things as they really are, this includes sensitizing these special men to the implication of what is just beginning, implications that are imperceptible to others. Prophets are alerted to tiny trends that bode ill for mankind. Prophets therefore are the Lord’s early warning system: they both detect and decry at His direction. What may seem to be a premature expression of prophetic concern is actually the early discovery of a difficulty that will later plague the people… prophets are, literally and figuratively, set apart from society so that they can better gauge impending problems, helping those who will either cease and desist from that which is wrong or prepare for that which is about to be. (Things as They Really Are, 1980, P. 77-7)

Those who continue to dismiss concerns about where all of this is clearly headed need to explain why, when the church and prophets speak out against such trends in society, they instead take society's side and parrot the rationalizations of entitlement that are so clearly in fashion today. Increasing government mandates are an encroachment upon not only our religious freedom, but our agency in general. I find it troubling that so many members of the church are trying to rationalize their support of worldly causes by dismissing the church's warnings as (take your pick) bigoted, outdated, out of touch, uncaring, irrelevant, unloving, stepping outside of its bounds, or (my personal favorite) in contradiction to their own shallow interpretations of scripture.

Again, I welcome this additional direction from the church on the dangers of where all this is headed. And I reject dismissive claims - without evidence - that it's some kind of "leap" to take a look at the clear trends of where these mandates are going and their very likely negative effect on us all over time.

Au Contrair, what some of these guys do I think could be cured by Heavenly Mother taking a willow switch to them. They need to learn simple sand box politics.

[Calm]

In my own mind, I m still 17 and my body should follow suit.

My teen years weren't that great, I want to eternally be 21.

[EllenMaksoud]

My teen years weren't that great, I want to eternally be 21.

Lol.

[BlueDreams]

No it doesn’t. There are differences of opinion in nearly every faith, even on core doctrines. Your argument would effectively eliminate religious freedom.

I just don't see that. I see it as a balance between individual protections and religious liberties. Similar to a number of other necessary balances such as majority/minority rights, etc.

IIRC, there was some discussion of the possibility that the Catholic church might close down all its hospitals rather than become an accomplice to what they regard as a horrific evil.

I see that unlikely, especially with the changes in the compromise. They might not be happy about it, but I just don't see it likely especially considering the multiple other countries and organizations that they work with where far more complicated issues on birth control (esp condom use) have come to head with the church.

What do you think of the compromise I proposed earlier in this thread?

I think it would also have the issue of having to have people individually contracted for health care options on just one thing (birth control). In general if you want to have the greater effect and use such programs are not advised. I haven't thought too much about it, at first glance it seemed like a good idea. On second, it seemed problematic for reasons I couldn't put my finger on and an unnecessary expense and complication to an already complicated system, and on the third I started thinking more of specific concerns about individual access and usability. Considering that it's not so thorough, I'm sure there would be more issues to be found in the workability of said program.

With luv,

BD

[strappinglad]

These 1000+ page laws are filled with intended and unintended consequences. No one knows the damages done until the bureaucrats get finished writing all the 'regulations' . My problem with current leadership is the lack of governing experience. Competence is not race related, neither is leadership. Do the job , do it well, take the flak , admit errors , lead from the front.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find the church's opposition to the ObamaCare mandate interesting in light of the following quote by Elder Maxwell:

When the spirit teaches prophets the truth of things as they really are, this includes sensitizing these special men to the implication of what is just beginning, implications that are imperceptible to others. Prophets are alerted to tiny trends that bode ill for mankind. Prophets therefore are the Lord’s early warning system: they both detect and decry at His direction. What may seem to be a premature expression of prophetic concern is actually the early discovery of a difficulty that will later plague the people… prophets are, literally and figuratively, set apart from society so that they can better gauge impending problems, helping those who will either cease and desist from that which is wrong or prepare for that which is about to be. (Things as They Really Are, 1980, P. 77-7)

Those who continue to dismiss concerns about where all of this is clearly headed need to explain why, when the church and prophets speak out against such trends in society, they instead take society's side and parrot the rationalizations of entitlement that are so clearly in fashion today. Increasing government mandates are an encroachment upon not only our religious freedom, but our agency in general. I find it troubling that so many members of the church are trying to rationalize their support of worldly causes by dismissing the church's warnings as (take your pick) bigoted, outdated, out of touch, uncaring, irrelevant, unloving, stepping outside of its bounds, or (my personal favorite) in contradiction to their own shallow interpretations of scripture.

Again, I welcome this additional direction from the church on the dangers of where all this is headed. And I reject dismissive claims - without evidence - that it's some kind of "leap" to take a look at the clear trends of where these mandates are going and their very likely negative effect on us all over time.

Very well stated, and thank you for the Elder Maxwell quote. I can think of no better application for it than to the topic under discussion in this thread.

I guess it boils down to the age-old problem of people putting the words of dead prophets (or their own interpretations thereof) pre-eminent above the words of living ones.

Christ said a prophet is not without honor except in his own country. We could perhaps adapt that and say a prophet is not without honor except in his own age or epoch.

[thesometimesaint]

Precisely. That's what I was going for. Do you think reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy? It's not. According to Wikipedia, it's "a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,^[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It can be a very effective technique. In this case I demonstrate that your position lacks validity by showing "that a false, untenable or absurd result" (theoretically forcing employers to provide prostitution services for their employees) follows from its acceptance.

Not every law or proposed law is good. That's precisely the point at issue here. I maintain that it is not a good law that forces an employer to fund a worker's freedom from consequences for that worker's pleasure seeking.

We can seek to change or resist the enactment of laws that are not good. That's part of the political process.

It may not be an unregulated economy, but it is definitely a free-market economy.

Not every kind of regulation is necessary, good, useful or desirable. Surely you can see that. And even if we accept the assertion that federal requirement of insurance is necessary, that still does not bind us to believe it is good to require an employer to provide birth control on demand for his employees or to do other things that he finds morally objectionable.

I am an American citizen and have the right to participate in the public dialogue about that very question -- as are the faith groups who have publicly opposed the portion of Obamacare that we are discussing right now. In a democratic society, where the people make decisions about government, we have to make just such evaluations as this when it comes to government.

That doesn't mean an employer should be forced to pay for it.

The Church of Jesus Christ (I prefer to use that as the shortened form of the name instead of "Mormon Church") does not advocate requiring an employer to pay for an employee having birth control on demand. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ, by signing on with this coalition of faith groups, opposes that very thing.

I don't see the relevance of your statement here about what the Church recognizes pertaining to birth control.

Irrelevant. We're discussing whether the government should force an employer to pay for it.

Does the federal government force your employer to pay for your car insurance? It doesn't mine.

It's very much my business as a U.S. citizen to have a say as to whether the government should force employers to pay for it. Especially when it pertains to something like birth control, which some faith groups oppose as a matter of conscience. Then it gets into the very dangerous area of government infringing on the free exercise of religion, one of the pillars of the First Amendment.

State's don't make your employer fund your car insurance. That's your responsiblity.

You have a tortured concept of freedom of religion, apparently driven by a sense of entitlement. Freedom of religion is violated when the government forces an employer to give an employee something that is against the employer's faith or religious conscience. Let the employee pay for it himself or find someone else who will. Freedom and liberty do not equate to entitlement.

This makes no sense. If an employer didn't want to pay employees, he wouldn't hire them in the first place. If he didn't pay them, they wouldn't work for him.

The government doesn't force him to hire employees. Neither should it force him to give them something to which he objects on moral grounds.

Forcing -- or trying to have the government force -- your employer to fund your birth control on demand or to do something else that violates his conscience is punching your employer squarely in the nose.

Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy by definition. It is a strawman argument.

Whether you, or the Mormon Church, sees it as a good law or not is beside the point. It is the law thoroughly debated, and approved in Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Game, set, match. BTW I do know the name of the Church and agree with its doctrine wholeheartedly. That does mean I have to agree with, or even support, every thing any Mormon says.

It is within your political rights to disagree with the law, even find ways to change/repeal the law. But for now it is the law, and you will obey it, or face the legal consequences. Have you forgotten our 12th Article of Faith? Here it is in case you have forgotten: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Your prostitution argument is a strawman argument. Further if for some reason prostitution was made legal. There could be no requirement in law to prevent you from not using that service. Moreover you as an employer have the legal right to make contract with your employees that doesn't include that service. Much like it is legal to drink alcohol if you're over 21, but numerous religions stipulate that their adherents to don't drink the stuff. You, as an employer can even make as part of that contract that drinking alcohol on the job is a termination offense. What you can not legally do is use employment to coerce drinking or not drinking off the job.

It is not even a free-market economy. We just regulate it less than most.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022409267

There are numerous wage, hour, and safety laws that come into play once that employer employs their first employee. Plus whatever contractual agreements are in place with the employee. You'd be surprised at the number of employers that would love the idea of not paying their employees. Let me tell you about the history of the steel mills in Birmingham; Alabama some time. http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758/

No; the state government forces me to have automobile insurance if I want to drive on the public roads. It even sets the lower limits of the coverage I must have. If my employer requires me to drive on the public roads as part of my job. Then yes as part of my contract I can require he pay for it either by paying me extra for it. Which he does, or less commonly, pays directly for it himself through his business insurance.

You've already had your say. Now it is time to obey the law.

No it isn't. You are entitled to believe anything you like. What you cannot do is impose your beliefs on others.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

The government can't force you to hire anyone, but if you do hire someone there are a host of laws you must follow regardless of your religious beliefs. Your religious right to swing your arm ends at my nose.

I've said many times before that I would prefer the decoupling of insurance from employment, but that isn't what the law is right now. What is required right now is that you(we)(the Church) follow the law. Trying to hide behind freedom of religion for employers is nonsensical and ultimately self defeating.

No it doesn't. The government or business owner, whether forcing you to take, or not to take any legal drug, is violation of freedom of religion. Regardless of what a particular religion says.

The Church joining with other faith groups opposing the ACA makes it no less a violation of freedom of religion.