quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Honestly I'm pretty torn by this issue, I guess the real question is, who is really in charge of the money...
If the Obama administration is doing this by administrative action, then it should only apply to organizations that take federal money.
If that is the case, then any religious organization has an easy out, don't take federal funds and they don't have to follow federal rules.
But as anti-religion as I am, and as pro-birth control as I am, anything that borders on the separation of church and state and the 1st amendment needs to be done very carefully.
I think it would have been easier to just take all federal funding out of anything related to churches... but then the Catholics would lose half their funding...

Wait! The federal government funds churches? If that's the case, it's a first amendment violation right there and it should be stopped.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

i am so tired of people trying to push their religious beliefs onto others and churches trying to force compliance on people. a churches job is to guide, not force. as far as i know almost every religion holds that we have free will, so why don't they let us exercise it?

I'm not sure but I'll bet a religious person might say that they're tired of people trying to erradicate their beliefs and replace them with secular "values".

Why can't they let the churches excercise their free will? Because they hate the churches. It's a about a lack of respect (In this case, the definition which reads: "To avoid violation of").



Peace and comfort,



Michael

ETA: Let's be very clear, here: We're talking about society, telling churches that they MUST do something that violates their belief. The churches are not saying: "If you work for us, you can't use birth control" They are saying: "If you work for us, we won't pay for you to use birth control" That's the issue, un-clouded by secular, God-hating bullshit.

Michael,
To your last point, I agree, though as I said, they shouldn't take Federal money if they don't want to have federal rules apply. But I don't think there is really that much religious persecution in the US, at least not of the various Christian sects. Most of the Christian "persecution," I hear about is things that sound an awful lot like "I tried to force my beliefs down someone's throat, and they wouldn't let me, wah!"
Things like Prayer in Schools (notice it is always Christian prayer, not Jewish, Wiccan, Muslim, etc?), the "War on Christmas," or other ways to be more inclusive on holidays, etc.
Frankly, as someone opposed in principle to organized religion, I kinda like the pushy tactics that Christians use, cause I know they don't work. Push your religion on folks, please, you will just annoy people into never wanting to be like you-aka Christian.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
(removed lots of stuff so the thread won't get too long)

You mistake me, sir. I am anti-organized religion but if we allow the government to steam-roll them, the precedent will be set for the government to get around to the rest of us.

I'd ask for proof that any church (but especially a church as wealthy as the Catholic church) takes federal funding. Now, if you're talking about certain programs available to all hospitals that may be federally funded, I'd buy that. I doubt you can show me where a church or parochial school is receiving federal funding. As I said; if that were the case, I would be screaming that it should stop as it would be a tacet establishment of a national religion.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Wait! The federal government funds churches? If that's the case, it's a first amendment violation right there and it should be stopped

Depends on whether you want to distinguish between funding churches and funding their charitable operations.

You are allowed to deduct charitable contributions on your income tax filing, and that includes religious charities. Additional federal and state taxpayer dollars flow to charities, and that includes religious charities. And in 2009, Catholic Charities USA was awaded a 5-year $100-million federal contract by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to aid in disaster relief in the United States.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Wait! The federal government funds churches? If that's the case, it's a first amendment violation right there and it should be stopped

Depends on whether you want to distinguish between funding churches and funding their charitable operations.

You are allowed to deduct charitable contributions on your income tax filing, and that includes religious charities. Additional federal and state taxpayer dollars flow to charities, and that includes religious charities. And in 2009, Catholic Charities USA was awaded a 5-year $100-million federal contract by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to aid in disaster relief in the United States.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
(removed lots of stuff so the thread won't get too long)

You mistake me, sir. I am anti-organized religion but if we allow the government to steam-roll them, the precedent will be set for the government to get around to the rest of us.

I'd ask for proof that any church (but especially a church as wealthy as the Catholic church) takes federal funding. Now, if you're talking about certain programs available to all hospitals that may be federally funded, I'd buy that. I doubt you can show me where a church or parochial school is receiving federal funding. As I said; if that were the case, I would be screaming that it should stop as it would be a tacet establishment of a national religion.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Glad we agree, including the fear that the 1st amendment is in danger (now and always).
You asked for proof though, so is this good enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships
Or maybe the .GOV site?
http://www.hhs.gov/partnerships/

Tax dollars going to religious organizations... And frankly if Obama saying "Anyone who gets tax dollars has to provide birth control," makes the Catholic Church drop out of this partnership, or other churches, GOOD!
But I still think Obama made a mistake doing it cause we have to be very careful of the line.

quote:

Depends on whether you want to distinguish between funding churches and funding their charitable operations.

You are allowed to deduct charitable contributions on your income tax filing, and that includes religious charities. Additional federal and state taxpayer dollars flow to charities, and that includes religious charities. And in 2009, Catholic Charities USA was awaded a 5-year $100-million federal contract by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to aid in disaster relief in the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

Despite this being framed as a discussion about Freedom of Religion, it's not.

It is about two things, both related to religion.

The first is the unending desire for some to dictate their own positions about abortion, birth control, and the proper place of women in society. They'd love to go back to ancient times and not have to confront equal rights for women, or any other group. The LGBTQ discussions and Gay Marriage have driven them over the edge, and this is another attempt to nibble around the edges of the Pro Choice movement.

The second is akin to Freedom of Religion, just hypocritically applied in reverse. This is one religion seeking to impose their beliefs upon everyone else, and uses the battle cry of Freedom of Religion if the State attempts to stop them. Since the economy seems to be slowly improving and unemployment is slowly going down, the are scared the Presidential election won't be held on favorable ground, so they're busy trying to find a new battle cry.

You can read more here: http://craig-allen.blogspot.com/2012/02/its-time-for-new-warand-this-one-is.html

The War of the Uterus has been declared.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

My religious beliefs do not prohibit either birth control or abortion. To which I say, the government has no right to pass laws which restrict my ability to obtain, and or pay, for either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Depends on whether you want to distinguish between funding churches and funding their charitable operations.

You are allowed to deduct charitable contributions on your income tax filing, and that includes religious charities. Additional federal and state taxpayer dollars flow to charities, and that includes religious charities. And in 2009, Catholic Charities USA was awaded a 5-year $100-million federal contract by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to aid in disaster relief in the United States.

Interesting that Catholic Charities is actually one of the organizations that's really OUT on this issue. I wonder if they will let all their lay people go as an act showing consistency with their beliefs or perhaps start refusing federal funding. Since being in business with the 'sinners' would be against their principal as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

My religious beliefs do not prohibit either birth control or abortion. To which I say, the government has no right to pass laws which restrict my ability to obtain, and or pay, for either.

That's terrific but many Christians (and Jews and Muslims and Hindus) believe that birth control is a sin and therefore, a prohibition and for the government to force them to indulge in it (by way of financially supporting it) is a violation of the first amendment.

Let's be very clear: If the government were trying to outlaw birth control, I would be at the front of the pack, supporting you but by virtue of trying to force churches, to fund birth control, they are restricting those religions' rights to freely practice their religion.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

They shouldn't. They would be forced into doing that.

quote:

To me it is a poor decision on Obama’s part and that worries me. He does not need to provide more ammo to the Republicans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I am for the new healthcare plan…at least I believe it needs to be tried and see how it works…But…

I can see free check ups….mammograms… and immunizations as a cost saver. In the long run they will save lives but I can’t see where something as elective as protection during sex should be provided free.

Pregnancy is not a disease that can be contracted…in fact don’t have sex and you will not need to worry about babies or venereal diseases.

It is not as if contraceptives are not readily available at reasonable prices.

To me it is a poor decision on Obama’s part and that worries me. He does not need to provide more ammo to the Republicans.

Butch

quote:

There is no prohibition on birth control in Judaism (except perhaps for Orthodox Judaism). There is no prohibition of the use of birth control in Hinduism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

There is no prohibition on birth control in Judaism (except perhaps for Orthodox Judaism). There is no prohibition of the use of birth control in Hinduism. There is no prohibition of the use of birth control in Buddhism. There is no prohibition of the use of birth control in Jainism. I do not know how Islam comes out on this issue. The practice of religion occurs at the individual level. It is an individual who is baptized. An individual who is called to communion. An individual who must worship and follow the dictates of their own religion and conscience. This law in no way interferes with free exercise as it is constitutionally understood. The law does not require any individual person to use birth control.