Evangelical pastors join Catholic clergy in opposition to birth control rule

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

2,500 non-Catholic clergy disagree with your assessment of the rule.
They see the violation of the First Amendment as still an issue.
They have seen Obama ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So naturally they are wary of him and his power grabbing agenda.
As far as I can tell, the language has not been set in stone.
as was discussed in this thread

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The ignorance around this issue is ASTOUNDING! No one is forcing churches to do a THING around birth control.

If you own a business, and I come into your business wearing a costume and hold a gun to your head and then order you to offer your employee's insurance that covers birth control, I'm not actually forcing you to do "a THING" around birth control.

Now imagine that the costume happens to be State uniform and I'm enforcing the law.

If you are a cab driver of Islam belief - - - but your company is a corporation that hires employees for their qualifications - - - not their religious belief - - - does that give you the right to insist all cabbies refuse passengers who are carrying a bottle of wine.

Yes - - the entire thing is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The ignorance around this issue is ASTOUNDING! No one is forcing churches to do a THING around birth control.

If you own a business, and I come into your business wearing a costume and hold a gun to your head and then order you to offer your employee's insurance that covers birth control, I'm not actually forcing you to do "a THING" around birth control.

Now imagine that the costume happens to be State uniform and I'm enforcing the law.

If you are a cab driver of Islam belief - - - but your company is a corporation that hires employees for their qualifications - - - not their religious belief - - - does that give you the right to insist all cabbies refuse passengers who are carrying a bottle of wine.

Yes - - the entire thing is ridiculous.

You totally lost me on that one.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The ignorance around this issue is ASTOUNDING! No one is forcing churches to do a THING around birth control.

If you own a business, and I come into your business wearing a costume and hold a gun to your head and then order you to offer your employee's insurance that covers birth control, I'm not actually forcing you to do "a THING" around birth control.

Now imagine that the costume happens to be State uniform and I'm enforcing the law.

If you are a cab driver of Islam belief - - - but your company is a corporation that hires employees for their qualifications - - - not their religious belief - - - does that give you the right to insist all cabbies refuse passengers who are carrying a bottle of wine.

Yes - - the entire thing is ridiculous.

You totally lost me on that one.

Good.

Its as ridiculous as a corporation - - specifying in medical care - - hiring employees for their medical qualifications - - - then trying to force them in to adhering to a religious belief.

Originally posted by Annee
Its as ridiculous as a corporation - - specifying in medical care - - hiring employees for their medical qualifications - - - then trying to force them in to adhering to a religious belief.

The Catholic Church isn't forcing anyone to adhere to Catholicism. How silly. People who work for the Catholic Church do so by choice. They are free to practice birth control all they want. They just don't get it for free paid for by their employers. They can still get birth control by going to planned parenthood, a doctor, a clinic, a drug store ... or even buy condoms for 25cents at a local gas station.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
You totally lost me on that one.

Some muslim cabbies ... I can't remember if they are in Michigan or Minnesota or what ... refuse to pick up people who have packages containing any alcoholic beverages. (you go shopping and buy some wine to take home ... 6 pack .. that kind of thing). And they won't pick up people with animals .. like seeing eye dogs or 'working dogs'. They say it's against their religion.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
You totally lost me on that one.

Some muslim cabbies ... I can't remember if they are in Michigan or Minnesota or what ... refuse to pick up people who have packages containing any alcoholic beverages. (you go shopping and buy some wine to take home ... 6 pack .. that kind of thing). And they won't pick up people with animals .. like seeing eye dogs or 'working dogs'. They say it's against their religion.

Sounds fine to me.

If they own the cab, its their business who they decide to give a ride. All they are doing is hurting themselves by refusing cab fare.

If they work for a company, and that company owns the cab, then that company has the right to fire them if they are not performing as desired. I'm not sure what the problem is here or how it relates to the OP.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

I totally agree with you ... to everything you just said.
And I have no idea how that ties into the opening post.
Looks like two different things ....

Again, it is a 1st Ammendment issue.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

en.wikipedia.org...


Let me highlight the important (to this issue) point

The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,

again

The amendment prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion,

This isn't just about catholics.

This is about all religion. Every religion.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Annee
Its as ridiculous as a corporation - - specifying in medical care - - hiring employees for their medical qualifications - - - then trying to force them in to adhering to a religious belief.

The Catholic Church isn't forcing anyone to adhere to Catholicism. How silly. People who work for the Catholic Church do so by choice. They are free to practice birth control all they want. They just don't get it for free paid for by their employers. They can still get birth control by going to planned parenthood, a doctor, a clinic, a drug store ... or even buy condoms for 25cents at a local gas station.

The employer is a corporation. It is not a religious institution.

We have 2 hospitals in my area. Both are Catholic run/affiliated hospitals. My daughter's doctor is Iranian Muslim.

What? Is this doctor supposed to find a non-Catholic hospital to send her patients to? Of course not.

It is a corporation - - - that ALL people - - ALL beliefs and non-beliefs use. They don't go there to worship a God.

Every woman in America must have the same equal rights to preventative care (includes contraceptives).

Hospitals are Corporations - - they are not little personal belief businesses.

This is unbelievably absurd and insulting.

Originally posted by Annee
The employer is a corporation. It is not a religious institution.

Wrong. It is an outreach of the Catholic Church. It is just as much a part of the Catholic Church as the buildings with the stained glass windows. I guess according to you, those people who ring bells during Christmas aren't a part of the Salvation Army because they aren't standing in a stained glass building.

From page one. You really should read the thread.
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services

Every woman in America must have the same equal rights to preventative care (includes contraceptives).

1 - No one took away a woman's right to go get herself some birth control.
2 - Guess what .. birth control is a COMMODITY .. not a right that has to be supplied by employers.
3 - The First Amendment is a right.

This is unbelievably absurd and insulting.

Yes ... you just don't get it ... it is absurd.

I think it is absolutely insulting and absurd - - in a Secular Government - - that any woman would be denied preventative (contraceptives) care from a corporation that provides medical insurance to its employers.

This is not the "dark ages".

You all can defend your Religion is a Choice.

I'm going to continue to defend a Secular Government and every woman's individual equal rights.

It is not a church - - it is a corporation.

Originally posted by Annee
I think it is absolutely insulting and absurd - - in a Secular Government - - that any woman would be denied preventative (contraceptives) care from a corporation that provides medical insurance to its employers.

This is not the "dark ages".

Agreed. In the dark ages, people wouldn't be given a choice.

You all can defend your Religion is a Choice.

Um, yes. Religion is a choice.

I'm going to continue to defend a Secular Government and every woman's individual equal rights.

Good for you! Government should remain secular. See my post about the 1st Ammendment. Women still have the freedom to purchase whatever they want. The church (catholic, in this case) doesn't want to purchse something for the women. (It's against their religion)

It is not a church - - it is a corporation.

Actually, it's recognized, by law, as a church-owned facility.

Originally posted by Annee
It is not a church - - it is a corporation.

By US laws that arguement is irrelevant.

As long as the US classifies corporations (in the legal sense) as 'persons', they have all the same rights that a person does...including freedom of religion in every aspect.

Not something I agree with, but a topic for a whole different thread...or 10.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
[If you own a business, and I come into your business wearing a costume and hold a gun to your head and then order you to offer your employee's insurance that covers birth control, I'm not actually forcing you to do "a THING" around birth control.

That's just it. Religious institutions like Catholic Hospitals, are exempt from including birth control in their employees' insurance. That's what the whole "accommodation" thing was. Obama caved in and said religious institutions don't have to by insurance that includes birth control.

So, what's the problem now?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


That's just it. Religious institutions like Catholic Hospitals, are exempt from including birth control in their employees' insurance. That's what the whole "accommodation" thing was.

No. That's what it was before Obama's healthcare law.

NOW, all inurance is being mandated to add that into their coverage, which the catholic hospitals now have to pay for, whether the individal takes that option or not.

Obama caved in and said religious institutions don't have to by insurance that includes birth control.

So, what's the problem now?

That is patently false.

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by Annee
It is not a church - - it is a corporation.

By US laws that arguement is irrelevant.

As long as the US classifies corporations (in the legal sense) as 'persons', they have all the same rights that a person does...including freedom of religion in every aspect.

Not something I agree with, but a topic for a whole different thread...or 10.

Yeah - - I know. Not everything makes logical sense.

Like "Free Men" in the Constitution - - - progression and changes are necessary for society.

No one should be "held hostage" and denied their personal rights because of someone else's god belief. Its just wrong.

So Obama - - went around it and presented a solution. STILL - - they want the control of women's reproduction rights.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, what's the problem now?

It's still all under the companies health care plan.

Technicality? Yes.

A big problem for some? Yes.

From a business perspective, I could see how this would be upsetting (but I wouldn't see it as a 'fight' worthy topic except for a few limited circumstances). The employee will be able to get all of the benefits of being a 'company' member without following company policy.

Here's another view on the topic.
www.forbes.com...

The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:

Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.

President Obama’s political skill is demonstrated by his anticipation and preparation for just this outcome. First, he has used the issue to energize his political base by positioning his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” and attacking his opponents for taking him up on his implicit dare to make it an issue in the Presidential campaign.

Second, last Friday’s decision to “retreat,” as proclaimed by the weekend Wall Street Journal’s page 1 headline and find a way to “accommodate” religious freedom, was pure subterfuge. The notion of retreat or compromise is pure spin. The President’s operative statement reflected zero tolerance for those that would disagree with his policies.

He announced: (the imperial) “we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains (emphasis added). But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

Got that? The insurance company will be required to offer the service, but will be forbidden from explicitly billing the Catholic organization for providing this benefit. Such a construct is a fraud. Of course the employer will have to pay for these benefits. And, even if they didn’t, the Church is still being forced to support what it believes are sinful acts. This “equitable solution” is simply an attempt to soften the blow of forcing the Catholic Church to accommodate the dictates of the now supreme federal government. It’s a face saving version of Option A.

Originally posted by Annee
No one should be "held hostage" and denied their personal rights because of someone else's god belief. Its just wrong.

So Obama - - went around it and presented a solution. STILL - - they want the control of women's reproduction rights.

And here lies the problem.

The solution that Obama has presented would never be accepted by anybody if it was between two actual persons. Ie: One person able to directly benefit off of another persons efforts against that persons will.

Most of us see it as reasonable because it is between a person and a corporation, but a corporation has every legal right that a person does, and the courts do have to look at it that way.