Political interference with Religion

[PepperElf]

This may just be the snarky atheist side of me, but maybe the Catholic Church should join the 21st century with the rest of us and realize that birth control is a good thing, especially considering how many Catholics actually use it.

This is the problem - individuals in society deciding what a church can and cannot support.

It doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter who here thinks it's backwards... it is not up to them to tell a church what they are allowed to believe or disbelieve.

and it sure as fuck ain't the government's place either.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say "unless we disagree with their beliefs". Nor anything about "joining the rest of society"


Once you allow the government to start dictating to religions what they can and cannot support then you start undermining the Constitution.

[AdminAssistant]

This may just be the snarky atheist side of me, but maybe the Catholic Church should join the 21st century with the rest of us and realize that birth control is a good thing, especially considering how many Catholics actually use it.

[PepperElf]

or an attempt to force government health care

they know the church won't stand for it so most likely the insurance will just be dropped altogether, forcing people to pick obamacare



cos hey wait... waivers.
plenty of companies have waivers. over 25% of them are unions. even though unions only make up about 12% of workers on the force.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-care-waivers/


Or in a nutshell, to many catholics this is an issue of extreme importance. Should the government have the right to force ANY religion to give money to support a practice they are against? This is why it's being held as a First Amendment issue - because they ARE being ordered to fund practices they are against.

Just how much control can the government exert on any religion?

[HYHYBT]

Its more along the lines of keeping the institutions from forcing their religious views on those that work for them.

In other words, yet again, *protecting* the religious freedom of those outside is portrayed as infringing on the freedom of those inside.

There is, again, much good in the Catholic church. Unfortunately, there's also still the root of its views being the only ones that matter that led to so much evil done when it had enough political power to do so... and, it seems clear enough, a desire to have that power again. Not that countless other groups don't have the same, of course. I'd just have hoped that by now this particular one would have grown in that respect, in the way it sometimes likes to portray itself as having done.

[Silverharp]

After researching the issue, I'm going to agree with the others. Direct Church employees, such as priests and such, are exempt, however religious affiliated groups who are not tax exept religious organizations, are not.
So no, this is not the government telling religions what to do, it's the government telling businesses on how to comply with federal regulations.

[BlaqueKatt]

Its more along the lines of keeping the institutions from forcing their religious views on those that work for them.

especially as many valid medical conditions are only treatable with birth control pills, so they are actually forcing women to pay out of pocket or go without necessary medical treatment, it's technically gender discrimination.

[bara]

This is about health care plans offered by institutions whose primary purpose is other than religious.

This is exactly what I was thinking, not so eloquently though.

Its more along the lines of keeping the institutions from forcing their religious views on those that work for them.

[HYHYBT]

Having seen previous examples of the Catholic church taking deliberate and unnecessary action to position itself as unfairly treated by the government, I cannot trust a word they say on anything along those lines. In fact, I see no reason not to assume they are lying yet again (or at least grossly misrepresenting the truth) until proof is shown otherwise.

And I hate being driven to that position, because there's a lot of good in the Catholic church, and particularly, every Catholic I've known well enough to have an opinion on has been a good person. But "the Church" has a lot of rot in its structure, and that tends to come out in how it addresses political issues.

EDIT: while I was typing that, Andara Bledin gave additional information that at least partly confirms my suspicions.

[Andara Bledin]

This is about health care plans offered by institutions whose primary purpose is other than religious.

These are the plans that cover employees who work for places such as hospitals and universities, many of whom are not Catholic and who should be given the option to have birth control covered as part of their health care benefits.

It's not as if it's being forced on the churches, as they get to keep the situation where their non-Catholic employees are required to pay full price for birth control.

For another view, here's an article from Winnipeg Free Press on the issue.

Plus, nobody is forcing anybody to use birth control against their will, so Catholics who don't wish to can continue to not do so, but based on the article linked, many Catholic women want access to affordable birth control.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

I don't see what the problem is. Is it that they are forcing religious organizations to give employees comprehensive health care?

[PepperElf]

Political interference with Religion

Those of you here may be aware of what the Catholic Church is currently facing. I am putting this in politics and not religion because this IS political.

It calls to mind the question - how far can the government go in forcing its will upon a religion.


Right now the Catholic Church has been ordered by the government to start providing birth control options in the health care plan - regardless of the church's stance against this. They have one year to comply.

(as for pro-life vs pro-choice this is NOT about that. We have other threads on that argument. This one is about whether or not the government can force its will upon a religion - and the implicated first amendment violations)


Personally I think this is a two-fold fight.

1) The fight of the government against a religion, attempting to dictate what they can and cannot support.

2) And attempt to force the Government Health care plan down people's throats - by "encouraging" private health care organizations to GTFO.


But it goes beyond just that. On top of this Army chaplains have been ordered to NOT let this letter be read - even though the priests are under religious orders to read it.

They can only distribute it in the back, but they are banned from reading it from the pulpit, as per the Army



So how far can the government go in this?
Should they be allowed to dictate to a religion what they can and cannot support?


And why no waiver? There are waivers a plenty for companies. Why none for a religion. Unless there is a plot behind it?


full letter is printed in this article here

[jackfaire]

Considering the term shotgun wedding comes from the West, which was primarily Protestant...

I didn't mean to imply that it was only Catholics. Nor was I trying to say they don't consider abortion to be murder just explaining they consider it to be more of a sin.

[Kheldarson]

^Um...more like it's more of a sin to commit murder than to have a child out of wedlock. And the whole children before the 9 month thing applies to a lot of groups. Not just Catholics. Considering the term shotgun wedding comes from the West, which was primarily Protestant...

[jackfaire]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Catholics also against children born out of wedlock?

Less than they are against abortions or birth control. Look back through history many babies were born before the 9 month mark to Catholic families since you know they never had sex before the wedding night yet could be 3 months pregnant already.

It's considered more of a sin to keep yourself from having a baby than from having one before your married.

[fireheart17]

And "good Catholic girl" my ass. Actual good Catholic girls don't get themselves knocked up by three different guys before they become legal adults.

^-.-^

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Catholics also against children born out of wedlock? I know that society wise, it's less of an issue today if bubs is born to non-married parents (a few mummies I know are either single parents, engaged or just had bubs anyway)