The contraception debate and my SIL

[zxcvbob]

The president can do anything he wants.  To hold him accountable would be racist.

[Monkeyleg]

Well, I'm just a little confused here, zxcvbob. Folks can successfully sue to have Christmas trees removed from public property on the grounds of "separation of church and state", and the Ten Commandments have been removed from courthouses, and kids don't have to sing the National Anthem in school because it contains the words "under God". Yet the president can tell the Catholic church what it must either provide to employees or have insurance that covers it, even though it violates the fundamental beliefs of the church.

Is there a double standard at play, or was the First Amendment always written with an escape clause?

[zxcvbob]

Is there a double standard at play, or was the First Amendment always written with an escape clause?

That's a rhetorical question even though you addressed it to me, right?

[De Selby]

Monkeyleg, there is a fairly clear difference between Christmas trees and a health care law - one specifically promotes a religion, the other has nothing to do with religion.   Laws that exist for a secular purpose and that apply generally are valid; you can't use religion as an excuse not to follow the law. 

If you had a religion that didn't recognise any contract not signed before a high priest of your church, would you expect the government to let you off the hook for phone bills or the like? Of course not, even if you sincerely believed it.   That's why when the government makes a secular rule like "health insurance ,use cover x y and z", it can expect that it will be followed by people no matter their faith.

[Monkeyleg]

De Selby, is the church even required to provide health insurance to employees? If so, is it written into the Obamacare law that every employer must provide X, Y and Z coverage? If so, are contraceptives part of the X, Y and Z coverage provisions?

If not, why specifically require the Catholic church to provide contraceptive coverage? My wife's birth control pills were never covered by insurance, ever. Are the unions and other groups exempted from Obamacare still required to provide contraceptives?

If you can't see the difference between contracts, phone bills and the Catholic church's proscription on contraceptives, then I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion.

[De Selby]

De Selby, is the church even required to provide health insurance to employees? If so, is it written into the Obamacare law that every employer must provide X, Y and Z coverage? If so, are contraceptives part of the X, Y and Z coverage provisions?
.

Yes to the above.

Also, you seem to be missing the point about phone contracts - to distinguish between the two beliefs at law would require the government to decide that catholic religious beliefs are somehow more legitimate than another religion's simply because it finds them ridiculous.   The first amendment doesn't allow government to make that sort of call - "more acceptable" or "more traditional" religions don't get any treatment that sincerely held oddball religions can't get.

And that is why a law which has nothing to do with religion has to be followed, even if your religion opposes it.

[BridgeRunner]

My thread is not about **expletive deleted** health care! It's about the First Amendment, and Obama's undermining of it. Go start your own healthcare/contraception/sex thread.

Once again, yes, it is.  If you want to debate an issue, or to discuss the debate on an issue, you cannot reasonably expect all participants to proceed with the understanding that only your conclusion is correct, and that any other interpretations are irrelevant.  Because that's not debate.  That's agreement.  They're not really the same thing.

But you're smart, so I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

(See what I did there?  Tell me again how smart you think your SIL is...)

Incidentally, is there any particular reason why the Catholic Church needs to have employees?  I've read most of the catechism, and I recall nothing stating that salvation is available only to those who are members of a network of corporate entities operating in the marketplace.  If the Catholic Church does not want to conform with employment laws, they can simply stop having employees.  Seems pretty simple to me.  After all, Eternal Salvation is way cheaper than $25/month, just need to hold some beliefs, accept a few sacraments, do some good works.  This church just needs to stop it's whining about how the US needs it let it do anything it wants, regardless of whose employment rights it infringes.

Disclaimer: For anyone who didn't notice, the above is entirely snark for the purpose of illustrating a few ideas stated earlier.  I do not literally mean the above.  At all.  And if you get snippy at me for suggesting the Church quit the marketplace in favor of house-churches with no paid employees, I shall  in your general direction.  At least. 

[De Selby]

Oh, I'm sure you pay that doctor the $500.00 and possibly more.  Just not at the time you're writing out the check for his bill.  Perhaps when you pay your taxes.  Or when someone else pays his taxes.
  

TANSTAAFL.

Actually, I know exactly how much I pay because it's on my taxes - 1.5 percent of my income so long as I buy private insurance (2.5 percent for some people who don't buy health insurance).  The total cost per person across the board is significantly lower here.

[zxcvbob]

ncidentally, is there any particular reason why the Catholic Church needs to have employees?  I've read most of the catechism, and I recall nothing stating that salvation is available only to those who are members of a network of corporate entities operating in the marketplace.  If the Catholic Church does not want to conform with employment laws, they can simply stop having employees.  Seems pretty simple to me.  After all, Eternal Salvation is way cheaper than $25/month, just need to hold some beliefs, accept a few sacraments, do some good works.  This church just needs to stop it's whining about how the US needs it let it do anything it wants, regardless of whose employment rights it infringes.

As I said before, I'm not a Catholic, but I'll try to answer this one anyway.  In Matthew 25 (the parable of the sheep and the goats),  "42for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 43I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.' 44"Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?' 45"Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' 46These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." 

So indirectly Jesus is giving a commandment to take care of the poor.  (it's also in the Golden Rule)  That's what Catholic Charities is trying to do, and they've decided they can do that more effectively by hiring workers.  (and perhaps but I don't know, some of those workers are the poor that they are helping *by* providing a job)

I suppose that's somehow exploitative?  And government welfare is not?

[Monkeyleg]

Also, you seem to be missing the point about phone contracts - to distinguish between the two beliefs at law would require the government to decide that catholic religious beliefs are somehow more legitimate than another religion's simply because it finds them ridiculous.   The first amendment doesn't allow government to make that sort of call - "more acceptable" or "more traditional" religions don't get any treatment that sincerely held oddball religions can't get.

And that is why a law which has nothing to do with religion has to be followed, even if your religion opposes it.

OK. So no church is more legitimate than another under the law, right? Would you care to explain why peyote (natural mescaline), which has been illegal to grow, possess or use under federal law since the 1940's, is legal for American Indians to use for religious purposes? Or does that not count because it's not related to health care, contraceptives or vaginas?

Disclaimer: For anyone who didn't notice, the above is entirely snark for the purpose of illustrating a few ideas stated earlier.

It seems to me that your entire participation in this discussion has been snark. If you want to un-snark your participation, please tell me what the president can and cannot force a church--any church--to do.

Contraceptives, health care and all of the rest aren't even peripheral to that single question. I don't know why it's so difficult for someone to lay out what powers the president has with regard to churches.

[makattak]

Actually, I know exactly how much I pay because it's on my taxes - 1.5 percent of my income so long as I buy private insurance (2.5 percent for some people who don't buy health insurance).  The total cost per person across the board is significantly lower here.

And, actually, I notice, as usual, once the meat of the matter of something like the conscientious objector provision to military service gets discussed you move on to some other less important matter.

I'll ask again: why is there a provision for conscientious objectors to military service but not to the administration's birth control decree? Is it because "pacifism" is something that liberals such as yourself finds acceptable but objections to birth control are not?

If so, why are you forcing your religion on Catholics?

[Monkeyleg]

BridgeRunner, I forgot to address your criticism (twice) of my remark to my SIL about "being smart", which you characterized as being insulting.

My SIL has an IQ pushing 160. She's extremely intelligent, and everyone in my family has constantly made remarks about that since she and my brother met in 1970. Her daughter, a doctor, has the same gift. My brother and SIL never had much money, but their daughter made it through college and medical school entirely on scholarships. Quite an achievement.

Of course, I wouldn't have expected you to know the background of my family. At the same time, I wouldn't expect you to make derisive remarks about what I say to members of my family when you don't know the background.

Between you and DeSelby, it would seem that lawyers don't seem to be operating with full facts in this discussion. It makes me wonder about the profession as a whole.

[TommyGunn]

Actually, I know exactly how much I pay because it's on my taxes - 1.5 percent of my income so long as I buy private insurance (2.5 percent for some people who don't buy health insurance).  The total cost per person across the board is significantly lower here.

Wait until Australia's government becomes as overbloated and regulation obsessed as America's and that 1.5% will seem like peanuts.

[De Selby]

Monkeyleg, Speaking of full facts, why were you railing against this plan without any knowledge of how it came to be?  Wasn't it you who just asked if the rule applied to everyone, not just the Church?  That would seem to me a pretty basic question to explore before accusing Obama of targeting religion.


Mak, like with peyote, the law excludes certain people by its own language.. The native American church (not a race of people, a specific organisation) and conscientious objectors rely on statutory language, not a constitutional claim that the law doesn't apply to them.  Completely different issue - the government can write laws that have holes in coverage.  But you can't invent a hole in a law that has nothing to do with religion on first amendment grounds.  

[Monkeyleg]

Monkeyleg, Speaking of full facts, why were you railing against this plan without any knowledge of how it came to be?  Wasn't it you who just asked if the rule applied to everyone, not just the Church?  That would seem to me a pretty basic question to explore before accusing Obama of targeting religion.


Mak, like with peyote, the law excludes certain people by its own language.. The native American church (not a race of people, a specific organisation) and conscientious objectors rely on statutory language, not a constitutional claim that the law doesn't apply to them.  Completely different issue - the government can write laws that have holes in coverage.  But you can't invent a hole in a law that has nothing to do with religion on first amendment grounds. 

DeSelby, that's a fantastic contortion act. Don't you recognize a rhetorical (and sarcastic) question when you see one? Of course Obama's rule targeted the Catholic church. That's the whole point of my tirade.

As for the Native American Church and its legal use of peyote, on what grounds would the US government have said the use was legal if not religion, and the First Amendment? Entertainment? Because indian clothing looks like 1960's hippie garb?  The government didn't set out to create a law that infringed upon certain tribes' use of peyote in religious ceremonies, but it did, and the law was rectified. In our current case, rather than rectify the law, the president has attempted to "rectify" the church.

[Perd Hapley]

And that is why a law which has nothing to do with religion has to be followed, even if your religion opposes it.

Are you suggesting that birth control has nothing to do with religion?

[Ron]

Are you suggesting that birth control has nothing to do with religion?

Birth control paid for by the state or ones employer is obviously an inalienable right that religious oppressors are trying to deny the American people. 

[Perd Hapley]

It reminds me of something a bozo journalist once wrote about how x religious group should not concern themselves with issue y, as it was not a religious issue.    As if she was qualified to tell  people what is or is not relevant to their beliefs.

[Jamie B]

Are you suggesting that birth control has nothing to do with religion?

Only for the Catholics, AFAIK.

[Perd Hapley]

Only for the Catholics, AFAIK.

From what I understand, it was once a common teaching among Christians of all stripes, but not so much anymore. There are still non-Catholic groups that oppose it.

Not to mention that some methods are seen as equivalent to abortion, and many Christians see abortion as being anti-Biblical.

[Monkeyleg]

I can remember our church, which was not Catholic, urging members to use the rhythm method in the 1960's.

[Jamie B]

I can remember our church, which was not Catholic, urging members to use the rhythm method in the 1960's.

"What do you call Catholics who practice the rhythm method?' "Parents!"

I do not understand the Catholic position on birth control.

Fistful is right in one case, as I think that the morning after pill would fall into the abortion group.

As for prevention, I have never understood the Catholic position.
It has always been understood that about all of us used birth control, and never worried about the church's position.
We have never, ever, been asked by any of our priests over the years.

[BridgeRunner]

MonkeyLeg, I suppose it is possible that there are people who are so obnoxiously and persistently patronizing they can't even wrap their minds around the implications in what they've said, but I'm having a hard time figuring out your issue with my comments because I know you're not one of those people.

[De Selby]

Making laws about healthcare in this way isn't a religious process.   If the law requires dcoverage for blood transfusions (and it might), are we all going to call it a religious issue because at least one religion believes it to be?

The idea that the white house sat down and crafted obamacare based on religious ideas about birth control is ludicrous.   There are plenty of obviously secular considerations that would lead to this, and that's why there isn't a constitutional, first amendment problem.

[Jamie B]

Making laws about healthcare in this way isn't a religious process.   If the law requires dcoverage for blood transfusions (and it might), are we all going to call it a religious issue because at least one religion believes it to be?

The idea that the white house sat down and crafted obamacare based on religious ideas about birth control is ludicrous.   There are plenty of obviously secular considerations that would lead to this, and that's why there isn't a constitutional, first amendment problem.

I would say that the WH considered the religious impact specifically regarding the Catholic Church.
I recall reading some early comments from Biden, A Catholic In Name Only, who indicated that the Church would rebel against the birth control portion of the insurance mandate. He was right.

Barry did later try and temper the impact to the Catholic Church by advising that implementation would be delayed until the end of the year.