It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Catholic Church and Birth Control.....My Opinion

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by beezzer
 


No religious or private entity should be forced to do anything, except follow some basic rules that we all must follow....but that isn't the issue.

What I am concerned about is the precedent being set when we allow a religious group to take exception through federal legislation. What if Muslims, Christians or Scientologists(sp) come out and say that they are going to staff their churches with 7 year old boys. Should we allow them to lobby Congress for the right to be exempt from child labor laws?

That is the slippery slope I am talking about. Where do separate function of government for the people and to protect the people's rights, and the right of religious groups to do as they please?
edit on 10-2-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

But, to my knowlege, no religion requires staffing of 7 year old boys.

I use the analogy of forcing muslims to cook bacon in their school kitchens.

Now that was what Obama was trying to do.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




But, to my knowlege, no religion requires staffing of 7 year old boys.

That's why I said: "what if".



I use the analogy of forcing muslims to cook bacon in their school kitchens.

I understand the analogy, but I don't think it is applicable to this situation.

Where does religious belief end and the function of government protecting the rights of the people begin? Do religious groups have the right to violate human rights in order to satisfy criteria set forth in their religion?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Where does religious belief end and the function of government protecting the rights of the people begin? Do religious groups have the right to violate human rights in order to satisfy criteria set forth in their religion?

Religious belief ends right before it infringes on another persons rights. Religion is a voluntary act, when it stops being voluntary, when people are being forced to believe in any way, then by all means, have the government step in.
Irony, in that it was this government though, that was mandating that a religion believe in a certain way, and act in a certain way.

Do religions have a right to violate human rights?

I guess it's a matter of perspective, honestly. As an episcopalian, I see the treatment of women in baptist cultures as restrictive. Or muslim cultures as restrictive. A druid might have a diffeent perspective. Muslims certainly think we (a christians) have it wrong.
That's why politics should avoid religion like the plague.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

I think we agree more than we think.

Government and religion do not mix well. That's why I have a problem with people like Santorum.

Therefore, if the government is going to pass legislation concerning healthcare, it should not have exemptions for certain religious beliefs, and should cover each individual equally.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by beezzer
 

I think we agree more than we think.

Government and religion do not mix well. That's why I have a problem with people like Santorum.

Therefore, if the government is going to pass legislation concerning healthcare, it should not have exemptions for certain religious beliefs, and should cover each individual equally.
But you can't apply healthcare (government sponsored) equally. Because religious tenents have different approaches to healthcare.
Catholics? Birth control, abortion.
Then you got the folks that won't accept blood transfusions (religious) the folks that won't accept chemo, antibiotics, Amish, etc.

The problem is that when government gets involved with healthcare, 1st Ammendment rights are going to be lost, regardless of the "compromises" that are entered into the equation.

Government should not EVER get involved with healthcare.

Religion is a perfect example.
edit on 10-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Nice, well put. I agree with you 100 %. your point of view in this matter could NOT be any more clear, and is right on.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by beezzer
 


No religious or private entity should be forced to do anything, except follow some basic rules that we all must follow....but that isn't the issue.

What I am concerned about is the precedent being set when we allow a religious group to take exception through federal legislation. What if Muslims, Christians or Scientologists(sp) come out and say that they are going to staff their churches with 7 year old boys. Should we allow them to lobby Congress for the right to be exempt from child labor laws?

That is the slippery slope I am talking about. Where do separate function of government for the people and to protect the people's rights, and the right of religious groups to do as they please?
edit on 10-2-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

But, to my knowlege, no religion requires staffing of 7 year old boys.

I use the analogy of forcing muslims to cook bacon in their school kitchens.

Now that was what Obama was trying to do.



That is exactly what it is shame they won't get it people who agree with Government are forcing their belief people who answer and believe in a higher power.

And that isn't the messiah or the holy government have no clue why what they are crying about they still have planned parenthood.

Something else that has been buggin me where are all the feminists in all this thought they don't need men or government to take care of their business think this whole deal is rather sexist harking back to the 50s.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


Therefore, if the government is going to pass legislation concerning healthcare, it should not hBut you can't apply healthcare (government sponsored) equally. Because religious tenents have different approaches to healthcare.
Catholics? Birth control, abortion.
Then you got the folks that won't accept blood transfusions (religious) the folks that won't accept chemo, antibiotics, Amish, etc.

The problem is that when government gets involved with healthcare, 1st Ammendment rights are going to be lost, regardless of the "compromises" that are entered into the equation.

Government should not EVER get involved with healthcare.

Religion is a perfect example.
edit on 10-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



Religion is but a guided pathway towards civilisation.

In our youthful ancient past, it had been priests and shamans whom performed healthcare functions. It is intrisinc of civilisation. There can be no civilisation if we leave the sick, the infirmed and the aged behind, no better than beasts of the wild.

It is part and parcel of civilisational progress of evolved societies, and none other than the leaders to implement, regardless their man interpretated 'religious' or political affiliations, a function of gov using societal funds/tithes to help fund healthcare, education, social spendings, etc.

Can the catholic church do it alone? Or will they deny that right for humanity? For centuries, that church had grown exceeding fat with donations from the masses. Had they spend those largesses upon the masses, or only hoarded them up for themselves, in collusion with those rich and powerful?

I certainly don't see any catholic church offering their vast sums to save Italy, the seat of the Vatican today, let alone any other catholic dominated european state in this financial crisis.


edit on 10-2-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

That is exactly what it is shame they won't get it people who agree with Government are forcing their belief people who answer and believe in a higher power.


Exactly! Government is trying to replace god(s) as a source of morality, ethics, faith.

Government is trying to not get rid of religion, just replacing it with a "new" religion.

Governmentalism.

Their church is any government office.
Their priests are drones behind the DMV counters.
Their altar boys are TSA agents.
And their current high priest is Obama.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Agreed.

But

"Their altar Boys who are TSA Agents are their "pedophile priests" who molest everyone.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


In this case, it is not the government that is trying to force morality. It is the church that is saying they want special exemption. So in effect they are asking the government to not allow Catholics the opportunity to have insurance that covers birth control...thereby forcing their morality onto the people.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by beezzer
 


In this case, it is not the government that is trying to force morality. It is the church that is saying they want special exemption. So in effect they are asking the government to not allow Catholics the opportunity to have insurance that covers birth control...thereby forcing their morality onto the people.

Al the catholics are doing is trying to keep the tenents of their faith.
They should be allowed to do that.
The 1st Ammendment provides for that.

This fiasco with Obama illustrates that.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




Al the catholics are doing is trying to keep the tenents of their faith.


I disagree. The socio/political elements withing the church itself want to force their employees to abide by their religious doctrine...even if the employee is not Catholic.

A very large percentage of the Catholic population use birth control. So this is another way to use government intervention to keep them in line.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by beezzer
 




Al the catholics are doing is trying to keep the tenents of their faith.


I disagree. The socio/political elements withing the church itself want to force their employees to abide by their religious doctrine...even if the employee is not Catholic.

A very large percentage of the Catholic population use birth control. So this is another way to use government intervention to keep them in line.

A recent Supreme Court ruling allowed that churches could hire based on religious preference. So that point is moot, really.

A large population may use birth control. but you're confusng followers versus religious faith. You can't base a law, any law on how some may interpret their own faith.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




You can't base a law, any law on how some may interpret their own faith.

Exactly. So why should the Catholic church or hospitals be allowed exemptions towards healthcare?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by beezzer
 




You can't base a law, any law on how some may interpret their own faith.

Exactly. So why should the Catholic church or hospitals be allowed exemptions towards healthcare?


You judge it by the tenents of that faiths. It's doctrines. ANYTHING with a religious foundation should be regarded as such. Because it's that foundation that propels the act. Whether it be hospitals, hospices, food banks, shelters, schools, or the actual church.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
We see countless threads, articles about not judging Islam by some of thei more extreme followers.

Yet the catholic church is being judged/treated NOT by its doctrine, but by the practice of some of it's followers.

I see a dichotomy here.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
It is the church that is saying they want special exemption. .

Um ... No. It's the Church that was exercising it's First Amendment rights.
It's the Obama administration that was overstepping and being unconstitutional.
There was no 'special exemption' in any of this ...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
A very large percentage of the Catholic population use birth control. So this is another way to use government intervention to keep them in line.

Not even close. No one was having birth control withheld from them. Anyone, at any time, can go into a clinic and get their free birth control pills or go buy their own on their own. This law was not going to 'keep anyone in line'. This is a free country and people can get the stuff anywhere they want.

A large percentage of Catholics use birth control. True. But that's irrelevant. The Catholic Church is not run like a democracy. It is not run from the bottom up but instead is from the top down. It doesn't matter what Catholics do or don't do .. it doesn't matter what they want or don't want. The abortion/birth control rules of the Church are carved in stone. They come from the top down. If Catholics don't like it .. they can go elsewhere. There is no threat of death hanging over them if they go down the road and worship with the Episcopalians (Catholic-Lite).

If a 'Catholic' is using birth control, then they are not following the rules of his/her church by choice. However, the government wanted the Church to not follow the rules BY FORCE. Big difference.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I hope you read my caveat in the OP. I do not think government has any right to be involved in the healthcare industry, and my comments are based on the current state of affairs.

Let's look at a hypothetical, yet plausible situation:

A low-paid female housekeeper was lucky and found a job working at a Catholic hospital. Her health insurance does not cover birth control, she cannot find it free elsewhere and does not have the extra money to buy it outright.

Let's also say that the health plan she has would have covered her needs if she was not employed by a Catholic institution.

The reason that healthcare plan does not cover birth control is because the Catholic religion as a whole was granted an exemption based solely on their religious ideology. These Catholic employers are required by law to follow all other employment laws and are not able to discriminate against their employees...except they are allowed to deny access to birth control that would normally be covered by their insurance carrier....even to non-Catholic employees.

Does that make sense?

Let's also say that another religion's holy book says that paying taxes to any government entity is sin. Should their personal incomes be allowed to be tax-exempt due to their religious beliefs? Following your line of thinking, government would have no right to expect them to pay taxes along with the rest of the citizens.

See what I am saying....where does it stop? That is the real issue I am trying to get at!

ETA: It is my concern that the churches first amendment rights in this particular case will inhibit the first amendment rights of the individual. So then a choice has to be made. Does the church have more "rights" than the individual?


edit on 10-2-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join