Religious run hospitals are a big issue. They employ 10s if not 100s of thousands of women. They are so called non-profits that make millions each year and compete against for profit hospitals. Is it a religious issue are a financial issue for the church. For profit hospitals would have an additional expense and religious would not.
Plus the many if not the majority of non-Catholic women working for these hospitals would be discriminated against because of the Pope.
Supposedly 70% of Americans now support Gitmo, so this does indeed seem to be the case.Statism seems to be emerging as the religion of choice for many
Whether Catholic organizations should have to fund birth control is a tricky issue (I do by the way think anyone opposed to all forms of birth control except NFP in the modern era is "nuttier than the fruitpie" (to steal an expression from my dad) but beleiving in nuttier than the fruitpie ideas is not itself a crime). It does annoy me to no end that with EVERYTHING going on the major political issue is fricken birth control! Not even abortion but birth control .... egads.
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 2-10-12 at 1:11pm.
Trees don't grow on money
It IS an election year. Which is why pretty much everyone (including the Catholic Church) is ignoring that 28, yep, TWENTY-EIGHT states already require religious organizations running hospitals, universities, etc., to provide birth control in their insurance plans. TWENTY-EIGHT states that have required this for years without large amounts of outrage similar to what we are seeing now, from the Catholic Church, Republicans, etc. until some operatives saw this as a "wedge" they could use to try to damage the Obama administration.
But......Obama, being the person he is, with the administration he HAS, (not the one as painted by the right), being a person much interested in compromise, has tweaked the plan to put the burden of supplying birth control in the insurance plans onto the insurance companies, so unless the aim IS just to cause a kerfluffle in an election year, that should solve the problem.
As Peggy so aptly stated.....this is not a religious issue at all, but one more of the many we will have to live through, of kerfluffles that the "world is ending.....Obama is destroying the country" until the election.
One really DOES need to ask where the Catholic Church has been and why we haven't heard about all this for years now, in those TWENTY-EIGHT states that have required exactly the same coverage be offered, and Catholic universities and hospitals have been providing it now in those states for years.
It's especially funny to me, since 98% of Catholic women themselves use birth control. And the "outrage" on the right is pretty much manufactured, since the "religious freedom" argument is bogus, in and of itself.
How far does that go? Don't Jehovah Witness's have issues with transfusions? Christian Scientists with conventional medicine in general? If people can refuse to have their children vaccinated under religious grounds, can religious organizations refuse to cover them? Why should the church as an employer get to do this, but not a Catholic business owner?
That's the difference between a state and a country. The country's constitution forbids this kind of federal control over religions.Originally Posted by loosechickens
This isn't a birth control issue, it's an issue of the federal government usurping religious doctrine and beliefs. How is the argument bogus if the government forces a religious institution to violate it's doctrine?It's especially funny to me, since 98% of Catholic women themselves use birth control. And the "outrage" on the right is pretty much manufactured, since the "religious freedom" argument is bogus, in and of itself.
I thought you were in favor of a separation of church and state.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Oh, am I ever for separation of church and state! And the minute churches give up their tax exempt status, I'll believe we have separation of church and state.
I am so tired of pandering to religions, who don't deserve special status IMO. No more than anyone else who believes something strongly. We don't let people violate US law based on something they really really believe in. Like magic apples and talking snakes.
But, if you think religious law /beliefs trump US law, well, bring on the Sharia law. Let Mormons marry as many women as they want. Let snake handlers expose their children to baskets full of rattlers.
Religion, all religions, are belief systems not based in facts or reality. There are about 20 major religions in the world today, each believing something different. Are we to allow each to re-write our US law reflecting their views? I don't think so. Obama did not pick this fight. As LC pointed out, conservatives, looking for anything to tar him with, picked this. They are the ones who are pushing it, not him.
And it's not the US government trying to usurp religious doctrine, but religions trying to usurp the federal government with their doctrine. No one is forcing the CHURCH to do anything. They can believe whatever they want. they can't set up a business and pick and choose which laws they will follow.
Should all charities lose tax exempt status as well, or should it only be organizations you don't like?
I don't think religious law/beliefs trump US law, but I also don't believe US Law trumps religious law/beliefs. You may disagree.
Either you believe in the limits our constitution places on government or you don't. And if you don't, what other rights are you willing to give up in order for the state to have it's way?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
No, actually that is incorrect. This whole kefluffle is related to how broad a particular exemption should be. The rule is neutral and applies to all employers. There is an exemption for religious institutions. The only issue is how broadly the concept of what a religious institution should be defined. Quasi public institutions that accept public funds, serve the entire community and employ people from all religions and whose primary function is NOT the practice and dissemination of religious doctrine are not religious institutions the way that churches are.
Many religiously neutral laws come up against religious practice. These laws are not in violation of the first amendment. Hence people are not allowed to practice bigamy or possess peyote or kill chickens in their back yards.
This rule only requires employers to cover birth control. It does not require anyone to accept the insurance or to use birth control. Charitable institutions run by churches are also not allowed to give women lower pay or discriminate against them.
Looks like the administration has proposed a compromise - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/he...cials-say.html
Seems to me it would be simpler to just not *force* people to purchase insurance, either for themselves, or for their employees.
Just pay the employees for their work, and let the employees themselves purchase their own insurance products that meet their own needs and conform with their own ethics. Sort of like we do with food, clothing, housing, and cell phones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote