Lds Church Joins Religious Coalition In Opposing Obamacare Mandate

[Calm]

Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy by definition.

You need to take a logic refresher course.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is 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. First appearing in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "εις άτοπον επaγωγή" or eis atopon epagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),^[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate....

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

http://en.wikipedia....tio_ad_absurdum

[jwhitlock]

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.

Indeed. Dead prophets are much easier to "interpret" since they aren't around anymore to correct those misinterpretations. Thus the job of doing that goes to living prophets.

When what the prophet says becomes unpopular - even among some members of the church - because it goes against the wisdom of the world, then it's time to heed the warning signs ahead.

The particular idea that by opposing the ObamaCare mandates we are imposing our religion on others is simply ludicrous. It seems to have become the argument du jour for those who want to silence both the prophets and members of the church in the social / political arena when they speak out about the warning signs ahead. Of course, if one worships at the Almighty Alter of Government Power, then perhaps it is an attack on their particular religion - or the arm of flesh, as it is referred to in the scriptures. Quite a bit of vehemence when the sacred doctrine of entitlement is questioned.

[jwhitlock]

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

The implications of this kind of narrow, fall-in-line-and-don't-criticize-the-government attitude are, frankly, disturbing.

Especially when we really didn't have any say about Obamacare. As Pelosi famously said, "We need to pass this law so we can find out what's in it."

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Already, calmoriah has handily dealt with your confusion about the distinction between reductio ad absurdum and the straw man fallacy. Rather than repeat what she said, I will refer you to her post.

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, ...

Congress can change the law, and a future president can uphold that choice. Obamacare is not sacrosanct, nor is it eternal.

... and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I like what Mitt Romney said on that occasion:

"Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today,” Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said in remarks near the Capitol. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.” He, like Congressional Republicans, renewed his pledge to undo the law.

(New York Times report)

But to be clear, my focus here is not the entirety of Obamacare but a specific provision of it that would require employers to violate their conscience or religious faith. As there have already been compromises offered by the Obama Administration -- albeit unsatisfactory ones -- it appears the administration could change that provision if it chose to do so. Hopefully a future administration will do so if this one does not. I and others will continue to press for it. It's our legal right to do so.

Game, set, match.

Heh. Hardly.

BTW I do know the name of the Church and agree with its doctrine wholeheartedly.

I make a point of it, because we have been repeatedly asked by the Brethren to use the full and proper name of the Church in our conversation and discourse or, as a shortened form, "the Church of Jesus Christ." See this from the "Selected Policies and Guidelines" of Handbook 2:

Referring to the Church and Its Members

As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see D&C 115:4), is increasingly important in the responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

Referring to the Church as “the Mormon Church,” “the Latter-day Saints Church,” or “the LDS Church” is discouraged.

When referring to Church members, it is preferable to use the phrase “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” As a shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is acceptable.

The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It will also continue to be used as an adjective in phrases such as “Mormon pioneers.” In addition, it may be necessary to use the word Mormon to identify the Church as it is commonly known in some countries.

That does mean I have to agree with, or even support, every thing any Mormon says.

What you have to do and what you ought to do may be separate things.

And the Presiding Bishop, presumably acting with the full support of the Brethren, is not just "any Mormon."

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.

This, for your logical fallacy study notebook, is a blatant example of a straw man argument. Wherein have I advocated disobeying the law or expressed the intent to do so?

Your prostitution argument is a strawman argument.

Obviously, I disagree. Hopefully, you are clear now on the difference between reductio ad absurdum (a potentially effective debate technique) and straw man argumentation (a logical fallacy).

Further if for some reason prostitution was made legal. There could be no requirement in law to prevent you from not using that service.

Under the precedent being set by Obamacare, there could be a requirement that an employer, against his will and conscience, provide and pay for it.

Moreover you as an employer have the legal right to make contract with your employees that doesn't include that service.

The provision in Obamacare does not allow an employer to make such a contract with respect to birth control on demand.

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.

For this analogy to be relevant, it would have to involve the employer being required by the federal government not only to make alcohol available to his employees but to fully or partially pay for it.

Theoretically, some future administration and congress could decide that prostitution and/or alcohol ought to be made universally available to workers by their employers. Under the thinking of you and others of your mindset, an employer could not demand exemption from such a requirement on the basis of conscience or religious values.

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

In the sense that there are no unregulated economies, you may have a point here. But there is enough in the way of laissez-faire capitalism in the U.S. economy that it is more free-market than not. At any rate, this is peripheral to our topic. I would prefer not to get sidetracked into it. What we are discussing is not the presence of regulation, but the rightness or wrongness of specific regulation, namely requiring employers to provide benefits that violate their conscience.

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 seem determined to miss the point. Unlike Obamacare, there is currently no universal requirement that an employer pay for car insurance for his workers. I can tell you that mine doesn’t, and I frequently use my car to get to and from work-related appointments.

[To be continued in a subsequent post]

[Scott Lloyd]

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

^{Wow. So much to say in response to this remark, I'll save it for later.}

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

^{Which is precisely what you are doing by advocating a regulation that would require an employer to provide a benefit to workers that violates his conscience and religious belief.}

^{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}

^{Thomas Jefferson was a great man, but I’m unclear on what you are getting at with this quote.}

^{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.}

^{But if any such laws violate someone’s freedom of conscience or free exercise of religion, they are arguably unconstitutional and need to be repealed. That is definitely the case with the provision of Obamacare under discussion here in this thread.}

^{Your religious right to swing your arm ends at my nose.}

^{You can quote this all you like and my comeback will always be the same: By advocating a provision that forces someone to violate his conscience and religious faith, you are planting your fist square into his 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.}

^{Again, nobody here is advocating violation of the law; certainly not the religious coalition in which our Church has taken part. You’ve given lip service to the right to seek to have laws changed or repealed. I wonder why you are inconsistent with that in your subsequent remarks.}

^{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.}

^{I’m unclear about what you are getting at here.}

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

^{And your repetition of this mantra does not make it true.}

^{By participating in the political dialogue and seeking to safeguard a First Amendment liberty, the coalition of faith groups is certainly not violating anyone’s freedom of religion. On the contrary, they are seeking to preserve the free exercise of religion by calling for the elimination of an oppressive government regulation that would force business owners to violate their conscience.}

[jwhitlock]

Interesting that there seems to be an inability here, as Scott has pointed out, to discern the difference between demanding that an employer pay for and provide birth control, and an employer denying a person access to birth control. The latter could be argued as an imposition of the employer's religious principles on the employee, while the former is actually an imposition the employee's religious principles on the employer.

I am not aware of any situation in which the latter is in place in this country. However, what Obamacare does is allow the employee (through the mandate) to impose his or her religious beliefs (I demand birth control) on the employer. It's really quite understandable. If the administration wants to be consistent, then they cannot mandate the imposition of religious principle in either direction.

I specifically term the demand for birth control as a religious demand on the part of the person making the demand. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we all worship at some kind of alter, whether it be the alter of the restored gospel, or the alter of the arm of flesh.

One aspect of the mandate that is troubling is the repeated phrasing of the service as "birth control". As has been pointed out, medications used for birth control can also be used for other things. Other medications (such as Parkinson's meds for RLS, as calmoriah has pointed out) have cross purposes. There are guidelines and restrictions as to what conditions a medication can be prescribed for. This makes the continued use of the term "birth control" problematic. By phrasing it as "birth control" in the mandate and basically saying that it can be prescribed for anything, it creates an indefensible either / or situation. The guidelines perhaps should allow the prescription of those medications for specific conditions and indicate that for those conditions insurance will pay for the medication. An employer could then specifically exempt paying for birth control prescribed for birth control if such a use violated religious principle. Other valid uses would be covered.

Why this becomes a religious freedom issue is because the administration seems intent on demanding, through the mandate, that employers pay for birth control when prescribed for pregnancy avoidance, without regard to moral or religious principle. Such intent is, ultimately, an imposition of the administration's religious principles concerning birth control on employers and thus a violation of religious freedom.

And yes, because of this, we do need to be concerned with the possibility that employers will be required to pay for abortion on demand as a mandated medical service.

[strappinglad]

Is it not possible for an employer to establish, as some sort of 'not withstanding' clause as a condition of employment, that stipulates that an employee releases the employer from providing service X ??

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it not possible for an employer to establish, as some sort of 'not withstanding' clause as a condition of employment, that stipulates that an employee releases the employer from providing service X ??

An interesting thought, but my view is that it would be far better not to place the employer in the position of having to do that in the first place.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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, ....

Um no Saint the law was not "thoroughly debated" In case you missed it it should not have even passed but the president pulled a politcal stunt and "deemed it to have passed". There was no debate in the democrate controled senate, house and white house. No one even read the freaking thing.

Saint, this Obama care is a debacle and in time you will see that it is, when the tell you to take the pill instead of getting that hip replacement. Among other things.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The implications of this kind of narrow, fall-in-line-and-don't-criticize-the-government attitude are, frankly, disturbing.

Especially when we really didn't have any say about Obamacare. As Pelosi famously said, "We need to pass this law so we can find out what's in it."

She also claimed that "every one will pay less on their premiums" She lied. What else is new? I find the beforementioned attitude very distrubing as well. I just don't understand the loyalty that people have to thier political party. I mean they are all taking us to hell. Why stand up for them?