Religious freedom or hypocrisy?

Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Fightdirecto -> Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 7:27:06 AM)
We are being propagandized by the Right-wing-controlled Main Stream Media that the President is anti-Religion due to the recent disagreement over whether or not a Roman Catholic-owned business can deny birth control to it's female employees (Catholic or non-Catholic) or whether the federal government can compel such health coverage, even if the Church is not required to pay for it, but rather the health insurance company. If birth control coverage is "bad" because it violates Roman Catholic dogma - how does the Roman Catholic church, through those same health insurance companies, justify paying for it's male employees' vasectomies? Isn't voluntary sterilization also "bad" according to Roman Catholic dogma? Does the Roman Catholic church fund vasectomies but not fund birth control pills because vasectomies are for men but birth control pills are for women? Smells hypocritical to me, and also smells like a blatant ploy by the Right-wing-controlled Main Stream Media to attack the President. How do you feel?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 7:33:58 AM)
Yep. It is all political pandering, since religious institutions have been including contraceptives in their prescription plans for years, rather than face Title 9 lawsuits.

MrBukani -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 7:39:00 AM)
Thats funny[:D] I'll remember that thoughtprocess

Hillwilliam -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 7:40:07 AM)
As I said on another thread, 20+ years ago, I taught at a Catholic school. The insurance plan paid for oral contraceptives. It's pure political posturing.

kalikshama -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 7:57:29 AM)
quote: Yep. It is all political pandering, since religious institutions have been including contraceptives in their prescription plans for years, rather than face Title 9 lawsuits. The only difference since 2000 is because contraception is considered preventative care, there should be no copay, as for all preventative care. Rules Requiring Contraceptive Coverage Have Been In Force For Years In fact, employers have pretty much been required to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their health plans since December 2000. That's when the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that failure to provide such coverage violates the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law is, in turn, an amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws, among other things, discrimination based on gender. Here's how the EEOC put it at the time: "The Commission concludes that Respondents' exclusion of prescription contraceptives violates Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, whether the contraceptives are used for birth control or for other medical purposes." But it's not only the EEOC that has ruled on the issue. More than half the states have similar "contraceptive equity" laws on the books, many with religious exceptions similar or identical to the one included in the administration's regulation. That's no accident. "The HHS rule was modeled on the exceptions in several state laws, including California, New York and Oregon," says Lipton-Lubet of the ACLU. There are now lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the policy, including a new one filed on behalf of the religious television network EWTN. But the exemptions have already been tested in court, at least at the state level. In 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld that state's law, in a suit brought by Catholic Charities, on a vote of 6-1. The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn't qualify as a "religious employer" because it didn't meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation): * The organization's primary purpose is "the inculcation of religious values." * It primarily employs people of that religion. * It primarily serves people of that religion. * It's a registered nonprofit organization. Two years later, in 2006, New York's top state court rejected a claim by Catholic Charities and several other religious groups that the state's contraceptive coverage law discriminated against them because it exempted churches but not their religiously affiliated groups. "When a religious organization chooses to hire nonbelievers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit," the justices wrote.

SilverBoat -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 7:18:48 PM)
Not really a 'new' issue, eh? ... It's just another instance of somehow the rightwing republican fundichristers conning the major-media outlets (which are owned by rightwing republican financiers) that they're always accusing of being leftwing lamestream socialists into propagandizing yet another rightwing psychosocial 'talking-point' churned out by the money-laundering rightwing thinktanks. Yanno, Will Rogers was spot-on, when he said he didn't belong to an organized political party. Again and again, the Rips troll-out propaganda garbage, the supposely neutral (or to hear the rightwing rail about them leftwing extremist) media parrot the rightwing talking points, the Dims run around in circles squawking for a few days, and then a smart puppy or two like kalishima dig up the reality checks. But by then the rightwing have begun raging about some other psychosocial deception they invented out of sheer machiavellian political pathology. ... Good find, kali ... ...

Miserlou -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 7:27:25 PM)
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?

SternSkipper -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 9:59:23 PM)
quote: Yep. It is all political pandering, since religious institutions have been including contraceptives in their prescription plans for years, rather than face Title 9 lawsuits. I agree this is about their backlash to having it more or less codified that they can't hide the "employee rights" conversation behind the religious freedom aspects of constitutional law. And if it's so fucking sacred WHY is Massachusetts Republican has-been senator Scott Brown trying desperately to save his soon to be fried ass by doing a RARE break with the party to fight the Blunt bill. And I really hope that some of the scholars that have been caterwauling at me about the "Constitutionality" of the Church's position read the following. Cause if it was as locked up as these learned debators say it is... There would NEVER, I repeat NEVER be a bill such as the description that follows: "The divisions point to the potential dangers for Brown as he seeks reelection in a state that is not as conservative as those represented by fellow GOP senators who are supporting a controversial health care bill in the Senate. The measure, sponsored by Roy Blunt of Missouri, would allow employers and insurers to place limits on what they cover, including birth control, on moral or religious grounds." The worst part is they are trying to not only legalize the practice of denying birth control coverage for Religious entities, the proposed law could easily be interpreted to allow secular businesses run or owned by 'men of faith' to take the same ditch on their responsibilities. Imagine that .... it's been more than a year congress has wasted our time trying to keep the economy derailed, yet they want to exhaust weeks debating this nonsense that's going to get taken clear to the supreme court for dismissal by some 16 year old. Not only should this bill fail, Scott Brown should get his clock cleared by 20 points for even trying to leverage this horseshit as a "major issue"

SternSkipper -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/17/2012 10:01:49 PM)
By the way... Politics in the Bay State hasn't been this funny since Gov Jane Swift began whipping her tits out to draw attention away from her husbands SUDDEN SUCCESS as a general contractor in the wake of her being elected.

tweakabelle -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 12:02:49 AM)
Is this new? Somehow I doubt it. My mother who was both a devout Catholic and a fluent Irish (Erse/Gaelic) speaker told me about the origins of the name McTaggart. Not the most common of family names but not exactly unheard of either. According to my mother, it derives from the Irish 'mac an tSagairt', which translates literally as 'son of the priest'. Perhaps there was a shortage of altar boys back in the old days .......

Edwynn -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 12:56:51 AM)
If the name is original Gaelic it's likely for it to have existed pre-(Irish)christian era or possibly in the earliest part before fully Romanised christianity, either way meaning pre-celibate priesthood. OTOH that potato famine would have certainly left a shortage of altar boys. My gg grandad hopped a ship westwards at age 15, so there's one less right there.

GrandPoobah -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 1:12:00 AM)
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.

SternSkipper -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 10:20:57 AM)
quote: Is this new? Somehow I doubt it. WTF does that even have to do with it? And no, it's not 'new' if you'd read any of my other posts, this employee thing has been played out like this in much the same way back in the 80s. But ok I'll bite ... so how do we explain the nomenclature of those we call sons of bitches today? Back in the good old days there was a shortage of bitches?

SternSkipper -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 10:32:35 AM)
quote: 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? You need to have a long talk with the speaker of the house then. The Administration is trying to comply with the right of every female employee to have access to birth control without UNDO expense imposed on them by any employer trying to use a social issue to get out of paying. And Organized Religion is yet again trying to disown their legal responsibilities as an EMPLOYER using the smokescreen of faith. And the speaker of the house and his jack-off sycophants are jumping on board to use this as an election year issue since they see the one of the economy slipping away fast.

RacerJim -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 11:05:14 AM)
Keep It Simple Stupid. If you don't like Catholic values don't work at a Catholic institution.

searching4mysir -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 11:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: 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? You need to have a long talk with the speaker of the house then. The Administration is trying to comply with the right of every female employee to have access to birth control without UNDO expense imposed on them by any employer trying to use a social issue to get out of paying. And Organized Religion is yet again trying to disown their legal responsibilities as an EMPLOYER using the smokescreen of faith. And the speaker of the house and his jack-off sycophants are jumping on board to use this as an election year issue since they see the one of the economy slipping away fast. So would you support all those Catholic organizations in firing all non-Catholics and replacing them with Catholic workers? If not, then you are saying that the First Amendment is worthless. Additionally, what is UNDUE (not UNDO) expense? Walmart carries some birth control pills under their $4/mo program. And why do you consider an prescription that is not medically necessary one that should be covered by an employer? I don't consider prescription birth control to be a "right" at all.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 11:18:04 AM)
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.

SoftBonds -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 11:30:12 AM)
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...

DaddySatyr -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 11:35:05 AM)
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

SoftBonds -> RE: Religious freedom or hypocrisy? (2/18/2012 11:56:58 AM)
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.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875