The contraception debate and my SIL

[Monkeyleg]

BridgeRunner, aside from your initial comment that I was insulting my SIL, which was not my intention and I don't believe was taken as such, I've been frustrated by you taking the discussion into a whole slew of areas that I don't think are pertinent to my complaint with Obama. I know that others are doing the same, but I guess you've done so at greater length, and have been more confrontational. You (and Deselby) have been insisting that health insurance is a separate issue from religion and, if I understand you correctly, that there was nothing unconstitutional in what Obama did. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I think it's possible to discuss what Obama did as it relates to the First Amendment without going off into discussions on the need for certain medications or other issues. That's why I'm frustrated. It's the same reason I was frustrated when Obama got the GM and Chrysler bond holders to take dimes on the dollar in the bankruptcy proceedings. It was extortion, and the media yawned. I think the case with the church is a big deal, and should receive more attention, and I'm frustrated that it's been (successfully) turned into an argument about contraceptives.

Certain unions, corporations and even entire states are exempt from Obamacare, all for political reasons. I'm not certain if the law has even reached the point where employers are required to provide insurance for all employees. If not, then how can the president single out the Catholic church and say that it must provide something that is against the teachings of the church? If the law now requires all employers to provide insurance, why do the unions and others get a pass, but the church cannot? (I hope I got that point across without muddying the waters with other issues).

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.

The White House didn't "craft" anything. Congress wrote the bill, even though not a single member knows even a fraction of what is in it. That said, your argument is backwards. You don't start with an idea for legislation, craft it, then say that the secular considerations are necessary, so the First Amendment will have to take a pass on this one. Legislation should be crafted by first asking whether it is constitutional in whole or in part and then, if so, continuing to write the legislation.

Makattack has already shown that draft legislation has been written to allow for religious considerations. I've shown that American indian tribes have been exempted from federal drug laws as they pertain to peyote due to religious (First Amendment) considerations. I'm quite certain I can find other exemptions in laws for religious considerations, although if you want me to do so, I'll have to bill you for my time.

Obama stepped on a mine when he got involved in this, people howled, and his advisors scrambled to fix his mistake. The fact that this thread has veered down so many diverse paths is a testament to the skill of his obfuscation specialists.

[Perd Hapley]

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?

Is there another option? Is there some other way that something qualifies as a religious issue, other than "one religion believes it is"?

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.

   

"We have plenty of secular reasons for making you kill enemy soldiers, so denying you conscientious objector status is not a first amendment problem."

"We have plenty of secular reasons for forcing your church to marry same-sex couples, so it's not a first amendment problem.

I love it.


Of course it's a first amendment problem. That's what you have when government gets involved in things it should leave alone, like how employers pay their employees.

[purequackery]

Invasive surgery violates someone's religion if they believe that any cutting will cause the soul to escape.  Government subsidy even minimally for catastrophic health insurance is unconstitutional therefore.

Paying for roads maintenance violates someone's religion if they believe that paying for infrastructure for use by infidels is sin.

Paying for the war machine violates the Jain religion and is unconstitutional therefore to pay for with mandatory taxes.

Females who want birth control have more expenses and should have to budget accordingly, I see in this topic, It's a predictable expense, I see.  Why shouldn't unfortunate souls with type 1 diabetes also budget for insulin out of their own pocket?  Why do you and I have to pay for their routine predictable medical expenses?  Treatment for chronic disease is the same as birth control.  Only the costs change.  When is a medication or treatment a personal budgeting issue and when should it be covered by heathcare?

Paying insurance premiums to employees and letting them buy their own healthcare is libertarian fantasy.  Employees acting alone cannot buy the same level of coverage at the same price.  Groups can negotiate rates and coverage in cases where individuals cannot.  That is the reason for government subsidized healthcare.

[zxcvbob]

We have plenty of secular reasons for forcing your church to marry same-sex couples, so it's not a first amendment problem.

I've discussed this with my pastor.
When that law comes (and it will eventually) he said he will stop performing legal marriages for anybody, gay or straight, to avoid the issue.  He'll still conduct the wedding ceremony, but will not sign any certificates.  I think it would legally be considered a common-law marriage.

[Monkeyleg]

Taking things to an extreme to make a counterpoint? I might as well do so, too. Government subsidized health care leads to socialism which leads to communism, which leads to genocide (see Stalin and Mao, ~120 million murdered). Therefore, subsidized health care = genocide.

[zxcvbob]

That argument doesn't work, because the genocide is somehow OK when a Commie does it.

[Perd Hapley]

Invasive surgery violates someone's religion if they believe that any cutting will cause the soul to escape.  Government subsidy even minimally for catastrophic health insurance is unconstitutional therefore.

Paying for roads maintenance violates someone's religion if they believe that paying for infrastructure for use by infidels is sin.

Paying for the war machine violates the Jain religion and is unconstitutional therefore to pay for with mandatory taxes.

We're talking about government forcing churches to work with people who do stuff against their policies. We're also talking about government forcing churches to provide something out of its own pocket, to its employees, that it regards as sin.

So your hypotheticals do not apply, my hair is a bird, etc. Yeah, we can find some religion, or some non-religion, somewhere that opposes anything. That is one reason to keep government out of people's private lives.

Paying insurance premiums to employees and letting them buy their own healthcare is libertarian fantasy.  Employees acting alone cannot buy the same level of coverage at the same price.  Groups can negotiate rates and coverage in cases where individuals cannot. 

Is there something keeping individuals from forming groups to get better rates, other than with their employers or government? Not being snarky; I really don't know.

[lee n. field]

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?

Sure.  JWs should be able to opt out as a matter of conscience.

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 suspect it is far, far more about abortion than contraception.  The RCC position on abortion is well known, and shared by many non-Romanists.  Contrawise, for many on the left, abortion is sacred, practically a sacrament itself.

[lee n. field]

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.

Barry has a tin ear.

[zxcvbob]

Sure.  JWs should be able to opt out as a matter of conscience.

I suspect it is far, far more about abortion than contraception.  The RCC position on abortion is well known, and shared by many non-Romanists.  Contrawise, for many on the left, abortion is sacred, practically a sacrament itself.

Very good tie-in with abortion and Moloch.  I salute you.

[roo_ster]

Sure.  JWs should be able to opt out as a matter of conscience.

I suspect it is far, far more about abortion than contraception.  The RCC position on abortion is well known, and shared by many non-Romanists.  Contrawise, for many on the left, abortion is sacred, practically a sacrament itself.

Very good tie-in with abortion and Moloch.  I salute you.

Indeed. 

The Biblically ignorant go all apey over Deuteronomy 21:18-21, but fail to understand:
1. The Canaanites were burning up their kids as part of religious rites.
2. The Bible forbade the Jews to do likewise.
3. Bringing the elders into the decision-making process effectively put a stop to the killing of disobedient adult children (for being disobedient). 

[Perd Hapley]

Indeed. 

The Biblically ignorant go all apey over Deuteronomy 21:18-21, but fail to understand:
1. The Canaanites were burning up their kids as part of religious rites.
2. The Bible forbade the Jews to do likewise.
3. Bringing the elders into the decision-making process effectively put a stop to the killing of disobedient adult children (for being disobedient). 

Interesting. Got any sources on that interpretation?

My biggest question about the passage is, how often did Israelite parents actually stone their own offspring to death?

[Ron]

That this is an argument taking place on a forum where liberty and freedom lovers purportedly congregate tells you how far gone we are as a nation.

Just to be clear, there are folks here who believe that if insurance is offered to an individual, by their employer or directly by the insurance company, the Federal government should have the final say on the terms of what is offered in the contract?

Property rights, contracts, freedom to practice ones religion, all have been re-interpreted to mean the opposite of the original concept or argued away to one extent or another.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, and the bureaucratic tyranny for which it stands...

[dogmush]

Why shouldn't unfortunate souls with type 1 diabetes also budget for insulin out of their own pocket?  Why do you and I have to pay for their routine predictable medical expenses?

That's a good question.  Why shouldn't they?  Why should you, me, or anyone else be mandated to support anyone else? 

Just to be clear, there are folks here who believe that if insurance is offered to an individual, by their employer or directly by the insurance company, the Federal government should have the final say on the terms of what is offered in the contract?

There are, and it's sad.  They'll be along in a bit to explain why it's needed in this one case.

[roo_ster]

Interesting. Got any sources on that interpretation?

My biggest question about the passage is, how often did Israelite parents actually stone their own offspring to death?

I assume the only question is on #3, since 1&2 are well-documented.

I can't give you chapter & verse...but that is sort of the point.  I was listening to some local Christian radio talk show, one of whose guests was speaking to this topic.  His contention was that there are examples in the Bible, Apocrypha, & other contemporaneous writings of just about every other punishment God mandated the Israelis dish out.  There were, however, zero examples of parents going to the elders and then the punishment being meted out on their children.

The larger point was the relationship of children to parents and the intrinsic value of human life.  The Canaanites had the authority to murder their children in religious rites, but God forbade parents from so destroying His creation.  He also placed practically insurmountable obstacles in front of parents who would both be in accord with God and wanted to kill their rebellious offspring.  From this (and other parts of the Bible) we see the beginning of both value of all human life as God's creation and the liberation of children from the absolute authority of their parents. 

That is about all I can recall.

[roo_ster]

There are, and it's sad.  They'll be along in a bit to explain why it's needed in this one case.

Because it is about sex.  Not only is denying anyone any possible opportunity to get off terribly uncool, we must now subsidize them all.