First off, the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
not relevant to this discussion. The only relevant fact is that the required
procedures violate the teachings of the Catholic Church and the government is
trying to force Catholic institutions to fund such procedures.I will
give a hypothetical example of what a like attack on the Church of Jesus Christ
would look like. In this example the government decides to improve health by
mandating employers provide a free meal to employees. To encorage better
healththe government also requires a glass of wine with the meal since that
reduces rates of heart disease. The government would exempt BYU from the wine
requirement, since virtually all students are LDS. However it would mandate wine
be served at Deseret Industries since a large portion of the employees are not
LDS. It would then give the LDS Church the option of including free wine in
on-the-job meals served at Deseret Industries or adopting a policy that makes it
so only baptized church members can be employed at Deseret Industries. This is an analogy of what the Obama administration is doing to Catholics that
hopefully makes it clear why it is so egregious.
The information about anyone other than Catholics must be incorrect! According
to the great commentators at Fox News(Hannity and Susteran) only Catholics are
fighting this battle. Just look at their long list of nightly guests! Do they
even know a Theologian who is not Catholic? oHow about a Religion Professor or
Business leader who is not Catholic? Their parochial(Catholic School Term) look
into this issue is narrow minded and again leaves short the efforts by all
others who are working to stop this issue. But, if you want to watch beware of
the fact that you will have to watch Susteran do another nice e nice dance with
FOX insider Gingrich. It's time for FOX to be "Fair and
Balanced" in its reporting on primary candidates and its time for them to
use proper terminology when attacking the non Catholic candidates. Even the
polling in this article illustrates that the majority of Republicans do not see
the Catholic candidates being the strongest defenders of defeating the
Administrations push on this subject. If Fox was not so devisive the Republican
Party would coalesce. They are as much responsible for division in this nation
as are the networks they claim are dividing the nation.
Re:JohnPackLambertThe definition of abortion is termination of
pregnancy.A fertilized egg does not constitute pregnancy.The
morning after pill is to be taken within 72 hrs after sex and works primarily by
stopping ovulation and fertilization. It also thins the lining of the uterus
which may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, although this has not been
confirmed. After fertilization, it takes 6-12 days for implantation.What is the LDS church stance on women using IUD's.I think we
should explore impotence inducing drugs for all unmarried men.
We fled England to find religious freedom. The point is that the law should not
compel citizens to do what is morally reprehensible to them. Allowing freedom
for others is different. People should be free to use contraceptives if their
conscience dictates, but citizens should not be compelled upon penalty of law to
endorse what their religion considers to be murder.
The "morning after" pill is part of the mandate. It is an abortion
inducing drug. To try to claim otherwise is to engage in sophistry. If
something ends the life of a child after concepcion it is abortion causing, and
the whole reason it is called the "morning after drug" is because it
is taken after conceptcion to stop the growth of the unborn child and kill that
I would just like to reemphasize this is not a pro-life fight. You can hold the
view that the government has no right to regulate the killing of any child under
the age of 2 (which I do not think anyone would likely express publicly, but
this is just to point how not related to pro-life issues this is) and still
object to the actions of the Obama administration.The question here
is whether the government has the authority to compel people to support actions
that they find morally objectionable. If the government wants to provide free
contraceptics to everyone, it can do so by directly taxing everyone to provide
such coverage. However to force private organizations to give such coverage out
of their own funds violates the basic principal of not forcing people to
participate in actions against their religious beliefs. The government has
never won a case of forcing people to violate their religious beliefs who are
private citizens with no relationship to the govenrment either by employment or
incarceration. These plans come close to presenting a choice of emigrating or
violating your religious beliefs. They definantly are meant to force a Catholic
hospital to chose between admitting all paying costomers or turning away any
non-Catholic, however life threatening their condition is.
The authors of the letter are right. Obama's actions change nothing, and still
constitute a direct assault on religious freedom. This should be a major issue
of concern even to people who have no religious objection to Obama's program, if
anything specifically to those who have no religious objection. The measure of
religious freedom is our supporting of allowing people to act on their religion
when we disagree with them. I fully accept that within marriage the use of
contraceptives is appropriate, but I reject the idea that the government has any
right to force those who view such actions as wrong to fund them.
âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...ââNo religious
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States.âThese two instances are the only
references to religion found in the Constitution of the United States of
America. They seem to be the basis for the argument by great and learned men
for the unbridled freedom of churches and their members to be exempt from the
laws of the United States.They are redefining the meaning of the
word religion to include the activities of religious people beyond the expected
notion of belief and worship. Thus if a church operates a
hospital or even an insurance company, those entities may participate in the
commerce of the general population and at the same time enjoy to freedom from
laws and regulations governing those entities. (Recently when ask about the
presidents compromise the Catholic spokesman responded We own the insurance
company)If we allow carte blanche freedom to churches and religious
entities, there cannot be the freedom of religion as Americans seem to desire.
Contrary to the belief of some, freedom does not exist just by the will of God,
it is something that is created by the agreement among people to restrict and
limit the freedom of all so that the individual may have freedom.
Wow. A whole article over two (2!) professors signing an anti-Obama letter. I
thought somebody sent anti-Obama letters every day from BYU, but it turns out
that this one doesn't even originate locally. Good thing the author included the
material about the last Rasmussen poll or we might have missed the article's
pragmatist for life said: "A twenty four hour fertilized egg is a
"human being"? Prove it."Prove to me that it is the
"woman's body." From my perspective, this is the more difficult task.
Taking DNA samples from woman and fertilized egg will reveal . . . what?
Suppose the fertilized egg has a Y chromosome. That would be a pretty sure sign
it isn't "the woman's body."Now before you jump all over
me, I agree with you that it is relatively impossible to demonstrate that the
fertilized egg is another human being. But I hope you'll agree with me that it
is easy to substantiate that it isn't the woman's body.What I don't
comprehend is our society's inconsistency. We wail and grieve because the
Powell boys were hacked with an ax and then blown up by their father. But it's
OK to rip offspring out of the womb?
The religious right is digging itself deeper and deeper into the mud each
day.People, use your brain and your common sense, please. You have
the right to worship as you choose. You have the right to use or not use birth
control. If your religion tells you to have a child every year, and avoid birth
control, go for it( and get yourself a high paying job so you all won't live on
the streets and starve to death).If you folks think that the religious
right is not using contraception and, at times, other forms of birth control,
you are terribly misinformed.Use your massive power, raid the various
medical facilities, check our their records, and you will have the truth.
Re: Pragmatistferlife" A twenty-four hour fertilized egg is a
"human being"? Prove it." Prove it isn't a human
being. When was the last time a human fertilized egg grew into anything other
than a human being? The only question is at what age the human is do we as a
society decide to protect that humans life. Wether it is 12 hours old or 12
years old, it is still developing in to full adulthood. If you go by the fact
that the 12 hour old human is in a womans body, then where do you draw the line
for protection? That is the issue. You can take a protect at conception stance,
or go the Tiller route that until the baby is out of the womb it is fair game to
kill. Or, somewhere in between.
Ok pragmat, I'll bite. You say if a 24 hour fertilized egg is a human
being...prove it.Prove to me that it isn't or that it won't become one!
Or, if the egg came from a human being and was fertilized by a human being, have
you ever seen it turn out to be... a horse? Or anything other than a human
CI,My point exactly. Not as wide spread as the previous poster
implied, is it? I'm not condoning abortion, just pointing out the problem with
the previous poster's claim. Have a great day!
So Mountainman..show me where on this thread you were told you didn't have the
right to believe as you choose..or you were told you didn't have the right to
speak your opinion..?A twenty four hour fertilized egg is a
"human being"? Prove it.
Re: ClaudioMedicare was and is for the people who have reached a
certain age. If one is not old enough one gets another free medical program,
medicade for instance, if they cannot pay or have no insurance. Yes, we have
been providing socialized medicine for decades in America to those who have no
other option. Why however do we need to change to a 100% coverage program,
which history has shown only degrades the quality of medical care as a whole?
As for PP in Utah, I have seen them. They are out there, and there is no law
which could or will prevent them from being in any state. Plus there are other
places to get birth control besides PP.
m.g.Scott,Socialized medicine=medicare. It was enacted by a
Republican administration. Also, when was the last time you saw a Planned
Parenthood in Utah?
Lies and distortions from the left on this:#1: "This is about women's
rights"! No, it isn't! Any woman in America can walk into many health care
clinics in America and receive free birth control products,including abortions
on demand. This is really about FORCING people to pay for birth control/abortion
for other people, even if it violates their religious liberties (killing an
unborn human being).#2: Freedom of speech is only for liberals. All others
who disagree must be silenced, shouted down and ridiculed, even if you have to
tell half truths and lie about other people. If you disagree with a liberal, you
must shut your mouth, keep your head down and just accept their verison of
morality or the lack thereof!#3: Where in the constitution does it give
the President the power to force American's or American companies to buy
anything? This is way out of constitutional bounds for Obama to attempt this!
#4:Shame on Americans who just don't care and like sheep are bleating for
more free goods paid for by other Americans for a would be dictator.
With Planned Parenthood and other organizations out there providing easy access
to cheap or free birth control, why was this needed in the first place? Either
Obama has stepped in it with Catholics and others, (I hope) or this is the first
step into the government "forcing" the private sector to
"give" for free, all medical needs. The thin edge of the wedge to get
one universal coverage mandated, then on to every other medical need provided
for free at the tax payers expense. Can you say Obamacare. Can you say
Get the federal government out of the health care business and we will never
again have to worry about stupid executive orders from presidents that don't
know any better. Obama is our servant, not our king.
It is not the right of one citizen to force another to pay for his or her own
contraception. Nobody is saying that people can't buy it; the question is
whether I have to pay for you to use it.
Boo on Obama!
You as an individual have the right to have your actions influenced by any
source you choose. However, your actions once they enter society must adhere to
exsisting laws, regardless of their influence. cjb put it well "Most
religions do stand up for good, the problem is they also have a lot of arbitrary
rules that have nothing to do with good, but are very controlling. Not using
birth control is one of those arbitrary non sensible rules.The
problem is the catholic rule about not using birth control, is not just non
sensible but is illegal when the rule is forced on anyone in the work place.
While it may offend your conscious you still have the religious freedom to
believe as you choose, and you have the feedom to act as you choose (live your
conscience) but you don't have the right to force others to act as you believe
outside the confines of your religion. Religions..you don't have the right to
act as you please anywhere and anytime you want. Religions
discriminate against women all day every day in their religious practices and
it's perfectly legal (although why any women would put up with it is a mystery),
but yes there is an effort to limit that discrimination to the confines of your
religious practices. BTW, the Rasmussen poll is always
I wish we could just declare Obama unacceptable!
I went through that link at the top of the article and there are roughly 200
male signees to 40 female ones. You know there are uses for hormonal birth
control other than pregnancy prevention.
I have to disagree with the BYU professors. Religion has no business making life
inconvenient for people who don't voluntarily follow their unique dictates.For example, suppose there was a hospital, a major employer in community
who said, you can work here, but if you do, you must exercise leadership in your
family and ensure your wife and daughters wear a burka when ever they go out
into the community and that your daughters don't go to school or get an
education.The typical conservative response what I have just said is
if you don't like the restrictions that employer puts on you, find a job
somewhere else. ... Yea right, its just so easy to find jobs. People shouldn't
have to choose between employment and living their life free of arbitrary
dictates of religions that have a lot of non-sensible rules.Most
religions do stand up for good, the problem is they also have a lot of arbitrary
rules that have nothing to do with good, but are very controlling. Not using
birth control is one of those arbitrary non sensible rules.Thank
goodness we have national leaders who see this and are willing to stand up
against this kind of soft tyranny.Remember it was as recent at the
1960's that courts ruled that laws in the southern United States forbiding the
use of birth control were unconstitutional. There was religious feeling then too
that this was somehow wrong. Thank goodness for the courts. Thank goodness for
Deseret News. When did IUD's and the pill become abortions? This article makes
the claim people are being forced to pay for abortions drugs, and that's simply
not true. How about telling the truth instead of just printing lies that a BYU
As an LDS graduate of BYU, I am vehemently opposed to these BYU professors
taking this position and I hope they do not represent the positions of either
BYU or the Church. The Obama Administration's actions actually is pro-life,
reducing the potential of abortions and providing preventative health care.
Having BYU people so closely identify with a politicized religious stance with
which it can be argued is actually counter to official Church positions is
troubling. I realize that BYU and the Church are de facto Republican
institutions, but there should at least be some effort not to appear partisan.
And on top of this is the logical inconsistency of their position with other
practices based on religious views which are banned by the government and of
which they are wholly supportive. Take polygamy or even gay marriage, for
example. If these guys are consistent, then they should be supportive of these
activities as long as they are based on a religious belief. We can save the
equality under the law argument for later. Effectively, we have a group arguing
for government protection for stuff they like, but are happy to deny protection
for things they don't like.
The religious freedom of a Catholic hospital should not override the religious
freedom and quality of care for the patient. The law has been written. A woman
can have an abortion. If we disagree with that, we can encourage our lawmakers
to do something about it. Is there a reason why no Republican legislator is
proposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion? They seem to want an
amendment for everything else under the sun, why not this? Could it be because
they know they would lose re-election? Sounds like they want it both ways, they
want to speak "religious-ese" but don't want to actually do anything
to prove their conviction. I'm personally not in favor of
abortions. I am however in favor of the law, and this has been law for nearly
40 years now. There is a procedure for changing the law. Screaming religious
freedom at a rape victim in distress is not one of them. It is akin to camping
in a park and screaming "my park."
Hi Pagan,Let's assume that you object to reading the Bible on moral
grounds (you could pick any other practice that you morally object to...this is
merely for illustrative purposes). Would it be fair for the government to
REQUIRE you to provide others with Bibles, even if you object to doing so?
Happy valley Heretic, A citizen does not have the "right"
to purchase something at someone else's expense. This is not about the right to
purchase contraceptives. Everyone currently has the right to make these
purchases. This is about the right to NOT purchase them.
This presidential demand is not even a compromise, its the power of socialism
and dictatorships. The government has no right to force any business with
federal welfare policy. Federal policy must not be allowed in the free market of
capitalism. There are no federal laws empowering government to make
demands of or force business to comply with laws of socialism that don't even
exist. Next thing you know business will not be allowed to shut their doors or
go out of business without presidential approval.
America is taken on a ride, a spiral down to extremist haven ... What is wrong here is that these costs are not for treating human sickness -
just a sick society.
What is interesting is the lack of women in this discourse. Nearly all the
articles and media discussions of this issue has featured mostly men. Imagine
if women were discussing contraceptive policy for men?Furthermore,
I'm surprised to see the oft repeated false claim that abortion inducing drugs
are part of the mandate. It proves the point that conservatives, whether law
school professors or not, are relying on the same incorrect propaganda.
'Defending religion is a citizens right . . . just saying'.' - metamoracoug |
6:44 p.m. Feb. 14, 2012 It is YOUR right. Like, it is
your right to not use birth control. When you actively work to DENY
that option of choice to anyone else...? You become a tyrant. i.e. If I felt that no one should be Mormon due to being
'Christian'...? Should I then LEGISLATE you to only be Christian? Same logic. Because my belief's tell me something, I can
factually work to DENY it, to you. Or is this only 'acceptable'
discrimination, when it happens to someone, else? FYI, while all
this is going on... Republican create ZERO jobs.
happy Vally:Defending religion is a citizens right . . . just
I wish these guys were around when we were being told to accept the Iraq war and
BO cares more about the demands of the radical feminists than the protections
contained in the 1st amendment.
Are there only two professor at BYU who believe that life is sacred? Are there
only two?Where are the others?
Like the rest of the left wing extremists, Obama is determined to erradicate any
religious influence in the public sphere. This forced providing of contraception
is the latest in a long line of leftist attacks on religion.Obamacare's mandate that religious schools and hospitals provide abortion
pills is perhaps the most devious attack yet. If forces religious institutions
to violate both their believe that life is sacred, and that sexual activity
should should take place only in a marriage relationship.The left
believes that the so-called right to engage in indiscriminate sexuality at
anytime with any person is more important than the protection of human life. It
is apparently not enough for the left to have this belief; the left must now
force religious institutions to act in accordance with that belief.