Obama is President of the United States. Not a church.
As such, he must adhere to the will of all the people in the country. No the religious freedom of a few. Who believe their rights
should run roughshod over everyone else's.
Yet another letter bashing Obama. Wow! Hopefully this satisfies those in need of
hateful vitriol against our president.
Thats odd, Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan had the same
contraception policy as Obama's healthcare plan, but I don't remember
conservatives getting too upset about Mitt's plan!
How can you bash anyone, Republican or Democrat, that has no convictions? I am
not surprised by the politicians, it's the followers that reflect the same
that I'm most annoyed. The politicians love money and power, the followers
lack conviction and purpose.
Religious freedom since it's modern inception with Martin Luther, and John
Locke has always been a freedom on conscious. The right to believe what you
choose. It never has included the right to religious practices that are
contrary to the laws of the land. The laws of the land change, but religious
freedom includes the obligation to obey those laws, thus give unto Cesar what is
Cesars. The current problem comes from religious organizations becoming heavily
involved in the secular world. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it
brings risks. The Supreme Court has many times said that religions
must obey the laws of the land. Mormons were not allowed to practice polygamy.
A man in Oregon was not allowed to use peyote. In this case the court said,
"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief
superior to the laws of the land, and in effet to permit every citizen to become
a law unto himself". By the way, that part of the decision was written by
Antonin Scalia. The catholic church doesn't get to be a law unto itself.
@PaganYou have a right to use contraceptives. You don't have a
right to force me to buy them for you.
Nate.."You have a right to use contraceptives. You don't have a right
to force me to buy them for you."..yes we do in some circumstances.
The Carholic Church is simply out of touch and on the wrong side of this issue.
Contraceptives save lives. Contraceptives reduce the numbers of abortions.
They reduce the incidence of AIDS and other STDs. They reduce the rate of
death from childbirth and pregnancy. The lifetime risk of
maternal death is 1 in 39. Around the world, 800 women die every day from
complicatons of childbirth and pregnancy. In the United States, the risk of
maternal death is 1 in 2,400. In Sweden, it is 1 in 14,100. For every woman who
dies, a further 20 women suffer debilitating childbirth injuries, such as
obstetric fistulas.The Catholic Church can teach its adherents to
not purchase or use contraceptives, but they cannot impose those standards on
@NateYou have a right to attend church. Plus you have the right to force
me to subsidize the roads, water connections, police, fire and ambulance
services and any other service that church uses. So maybe you should just not
complain that your medical insurance has coverage for birth control pills.
There is no such thing as an absolute right. Our right to free speech is
curtailed when it comes to safety of others (the classic yelling "fire"
in a crowded theater") Our right to assembly is curtailed in that we cannot
incite riots.The Freedom of Religion is absolute in that you are
allowed to believe whatever you wish, and worship whomever you wish, but your
actions are not absolutely guaranteed. In the 1890's a Mormon could not
marry multiple wives, there has been some debate of late whether Muslim kids
should be allowed to leave class for a few moments to pray.We cannot
use the shroud of Freedom of Religion to attempt to limit the rights of others.
I may firmly believe women do not have the right to property, but that does not
give me legal authority to steal vehicles from their women owners. What I can
do is preach, and attempt to persuade others to my beliefs and effect change
that way.The question comes down to whether Healthcare is a right.
If so, and a very strong argument can be made for such, my religion cannot trump
your right to healthcare, in whatever form.
Right Noodle, we subsidize churches all the time since they are also exempt from
paying any taxes yet receive the same benefits of a business. Why am
I FORCED to pay for other people's religions? Especially ones that
don't believe in contraceptives?
Pragmatist,no, you do NOT! Even BO recognizes that with his attempts at
compromising away religuos rights.Noodle, yep, that's
right, those roads your taxes subsidize go to churches only, and NOT to ANY
OTHER homes, parks, businesses, etc. Too funny!switcharoo,Too
funny! you are forced to pay for someone else's religion LOL!!! Ow, my side
hurts!Darrel,no one is using the "shroud of Freedom of
Religion" to infringe on anyone's rights. People can still buy their
own contraceptive and use them. By so claiming, you are essentially yelling
"fire" in a crowded theater by raising a false alarm.
@pragmatistferlife "yes we do in some circumstances"Not in
these circumstances. Not when it violates my conscience. Our contract says,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Your right to contraceptives ends
where my right to free exercise of religion begins.
pragmatistferlife"Religious freedom since it's modern
inception with Martin Luther, and John Locke has always been a freedom on
conscious. The right to believe what you choose. It never has included the right
to religious practices that are contrary to the laws of the land."An interesting point of view. However, I remind you that each law enacted by
congress is subject to the Constitution, in that, if its constitutionality is
questionable, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which can overturn the
law, or any parts of the law that are unconstitutional. So your
suggestion that congress and the president can just pass a new law that violates
constitutional religious freedom, and it is then enforceable, is simply not
true. That would require amending the constitution.I also reject the
notion that the first amendment is for freedom of thought only. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."The word
"exercise" is more than just a thought. It is an action word. It seems
clear enough that actions based on religious beliefs are in fact protected.
Lost..yes we do, if it's the law of the land that women have the right to
contraceptives in their health care plans. All that the President is doing is
attempting to find a compromise that makes it easier for relligions to comply.
Nothing he is doing negates religions obligation to comply. By the way the next
time someone on the right claims in this thread that the President doesn't
want to compromise remember this action.Religions have never had the
right to break the law per the SCOTUS and hopefully never will.
lost in DC said: Noodle, yep, that's right, those roads your taxes
subsidize go to churches only, and NOT to ANY OTHER homes, parks, businesses,
etc. Too funny!His point being That Churches DON"T pay for those
items but enjoy the benefits they bring, you should understand that since you
rail against the mythical 47% who are leeches on society. What is
"Too funny" is that you believe society should obey what religious
leaders dictate, when they can't even agree on interpretations from many of
the same books?
@lost in DCThe difference of course is that Wal Mart, McDonalds, local
businesses and home owners pay property tax. Even renters pay property tax
indirectly, as the owner of the property pays taxes, which factor into the
amount you pay monthly for rent. All of these people pay for the services a
church enjoys for free, ie a subsidy. I personally would be more than willing to
pay for my wives birth control(because one kid is enough to deal with right
now), if you were willing to have all churches pay taxes, I'm sure the drop
in my property tax would make up the difference.
Churches, religions, charities and the like are simply a type of business
organizations. They have a product to sell and a set of unsubstantiated
promises covering it. If they were classified along with other types of
business organizations, they would probably be the most powerful, richest, and
longest lasting corporations in the world. For the most part they
hide their deliberations, financial activities, power structures. Their
organizations are dictatorial, undemocratic and unquestionable. There is no
measuring stick to judge their competence, performance or success. Their
failure is readily seen in the grandeur, size, opulence and number of churches,
Temples, Cathedrals, Mosks, surrounded by poverty, misery and the poor.
They play upon the most primal, basic, unresolved fear that exist in all
life, death. Using this fear they are able to set themselves apart from other
businesses and demand special favoritism from society and it’s
government.It is very important the we, our government, hold them in
check until their true nature is known by all the people.
Re: ". . . church enjoys for free, ie a subsidy."Liberal
sophistry.Using the same flawed logic, since, over my many, many
years, I could have stolen millions from you, and didn't, I've
subsidized your lifestyle to the tune of millions of dollars.So, you
owe me. Big time.In reality, exemption of churches from taxation was
done defensively, by politicians who fear the power of churches to influence
members, and to take the First Amendment off the table in the "crafting"
of tax policy. It prevents a lawsuit each time some politically-motivated,
vote-buying tax scam illegally impacts on a church's First Amendment
rights.The tacit pact politicians have historically sought is this
-- churches will stay out of politicians' business, if politicians stay out
of churches'.The Obama regime has already fired the first
shots, breaking this historical uneasy truce. They probably think they'll
get away with it.We'll see.
@NoodlekaboodleIt doesn't violate your conscience to pay for my
road. It only violates your preference. That's the difference.
Religeous freedom is often in the eye of the heholder. But, make no mistake
this is not really about religious freedom it is about limiting free agency. In
this case the agency of indididuals to use or not use artificial contraceptives.
The Catholic Church and others who do not believe in contraception by artifical
means, want to find ways to limit free choice. They want to compel behavor that
conforms to their unenlighted intolerant views. They have made Obama ACA the
focal point of their intolerance in much the same way that they attacked science
in the 15th century because acience had the audacity to proclaim that the Stars
and Sun did not rotate around the earth.
Pragmatistferlife said it all better than I hoped… I will just
add that religions have a very long history (from medieval Europe to the Muslim
countries of today) of wanting to not only be “the law unto
themselves” but when they get enough power to be the law of the land that
everyone must obey… or else.Thank God (ironic?) we have our
Constitution to protect us from these encroachments, except sadly, one side
consistently cherry picks only the parts they like (even within a single
sentence of an amendment!). In this case their focus is on
“the free exercise thereof” (although they even misunderstand that),
while completely ignoring the part about “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion.”
Christian, I absolutely did not infer that Congress and the President can just
pass a law that is unconstitutional..quite the opposite. What I said is that
the supreme court has many times upheld the principle that religions do not have
a right to conscientious practices that violate the law..including when Mormons
were told they couldn't practice polygomy..and the ACA has been found to be
constitutional so it is not violating the constitution. Nate.."
Your right to contraceptives ends where my right to free exercise of religion
begins."..not true if your exercise of religion breaks the law..and again
the ACA is the law and has been found to be constitutional. Judge
Scalia said.."To permit this (unlawful religious practice) would be to make
the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the laws of the land,
and in effet to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself". You can
change the law but until you do the catholic church as a secular employer must
provide access to contraceptives..it's the law. Last post on
subject so someone else needs to pound this truth home.
We don’t live in medieval times when the Church was the authority to which
science and philosophy deferred on matters pertaining to those disciplines.
That’s not how it works in the United States today. Burnings at the stake
for heresy or witchcraft are not allowed and religious clerics must now use
Constitutional tools to challenge a secularism that is independent of the
Church.The only reason we’re having this fight is because
religion couldn’t keep its paws out of a matter that has nothing to do
with religion. I’ve said before on these boards that no one is forcing any
religious entity to take on the role of insurance carrier. But since some
religious entities are do just that, they have to abide by the same rules of law
that every other carrier must adhere to. If they want to take it to the Supreme
Court, maybe they should do just that and let the Court sort out the contentious
issue and clarify it for us.
Happy valley,You mean NONE of the people attending those churches pay
taxes? BTW, is 49.2% a majority yet? You have no credibilityTyler,But BO IS making a law respecting religion – he is
saying abortion and contraception “rights” are superior to religious
rights. neither of the former is specifically mentioned in the constitution,
while the latter is.
Let people, not employers or churches, make the decision for themselves.
Affirming a long history of precedents, here is a recent Supreme Court opinion
related to this issue:The Court held that the First Amendment's
protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to
use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable
laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious
belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to
become a law unto himself." Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs
did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor
laws…and laws requiring the payment of taxes, among others. So
according to the SC, the ACA provision on contraception would have been on safe
ground even without the recent compromise, but once again in a (failed) attempt
to appease the “nutty Right” the Administration seems to have put
themselves on even firmer ground (as the ACA is clearly a “generally
applicable law”).@lost in DCThat batting average
is not getting any better, but please… keep swinging.
"Obama" and "Balanced" don't mix. Barack is all about
extremism which is at the core of his progressive-ism and Communism.
NatePleasant Grove, UT@Noodlekaboodle"It
doesn't violate your conscience to pay for my road. It only violates your
preference. That's the difference."Actually, that's
not true. Native American religion believes we need to be better stewards of the
earth, that paving more roads and pumping more oil and mining more metals
diminishes us as a people, spiritually, and is contrary to what the Creator
desires.Yet they are forced to pay the same taxes we are, against
their conscience.Where do you draw the line? Do adherents of Native
American church's views' not matter, only those of conservatives?
They certainly seem to be taking a back seat in your view of religious freedom
vs government policy.
@pragmatistferlife "...has been found to be constitutional."That challenge was brought on grounds other than religious freedom. There are
religious-freedom challenges working their way through the courts right now. The
issue has yet to be decided.@10CC "Do adherents of Native
American church's views' not matter...?"Of course they
matter. I don't believe they should be forced to participate in anything
that desecrates land sacred to them. I'm on their side of this question.Noodle's objection was based on fairness, not freedom of
conscience. But, as has been pointed out already, individual church-goers
already pay taxes for the roads, just like everyone else.
@NateI would advise you against claiming you know my concious. Plus there
really are churches that have beliefs that are strongly against mine. I'm a
very outspoken LGBT advocate. Most churches hold the opposite views. They are
within their rights as americans to think whatever they want. But I
shouldn't have to pay for it. @procuradorfiscal"The tacit
pact politicians have historically sought is this -- churches will stay out of
politicians business, if politicians stay out of churches"Ha, you live
in Utah right? Or even this country? If this was the intent of making churches
non profit it has failed MISERABLY. If that was the point why are churches even
getting involved in the debate about the ACA? I thought this was supposed to
keep churches out of politics. The ACA is nothing but insurance regulations, so
why are churches involved again?
The way the republicans are back pedaling on the conservatives makes this mostly
hot air. The right wing is back in the small corner for another twenty to thirty
years. Blog away.
You don't have a right to force me to buy them for you. - Nate
My tax dollars pay for another man's Viagra. Your claim is
"@NoodlekaboodleIt doesn't violate your conscience to pay
for my road. It only violates your preference. That's the
difference."Who are you to tell Noodlekaboodle what violates his
conscience? Or mine? Quite frankly it does violate my conscience that religions
get a free ride when it comes to receiving the services a community provides. I
don't believe in your faith, why should I have to help pay for it?
I'll tell you why. Because that is what we have decided as a community. I'll tell you something else that violates my conscience. Our
prison system. There are many aspects of it that offend my spiritual
sensibility. Not the least being executions. But I don't get to opt out of
paying for them. My spiritual sensibility is also offended by fighting
unnecessary wars. But I don't get to opt out of paying for them. And
I'm not asking to. I recognize that it is part of being a functioning
member if society. I don't always get my way. So if I can pay
for these things that I vehemently, spiritually disagree with, religiously owned
businesses can provide insurance with contraception coverage.