For a while it had me quite baffled. I mean, if your organisation was specifically exempted from having to pay for contraception, then your religious freedom has been upheld. Righty-oh, let's all move on with our lives. Except that people on the religious right continue to freak the feth out that they're religious freedom to not have anything to do with contraception is being ignored, despite
It's very odd because there's no mandate for Rick Warren or his ministry to pay under the federal law, they'll get an exemption as a religious organisation. In fact, the federal law is identical to the one that's been in place in Warren's home state of California for 13 years, that he's complied to every single year without ever even going slightly to jail, because it doesn't make him pay for anyone's birth control.
So that was my first clue as to what was really going on, but then this quote from Charles Colson made things more clear; "We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government." http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=12382
So he's calling for civil disobedience to resist a government that isn't making him do anything. Which is very weird, still, but a pattern begins to emerge, made finally clear by Father John Morris, who boldly declared; “Of course I’m willing to die, of course I’m willing to go to jail, of course I’m willing to pay a fine. That is the most normal, non-radical thing I can think of,” http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/father-jonathan-morris-doubles-down-willin
It's just as odd, as with all the others, that he's willing to go so far to defend his right to refuse a law that he's been specifically exempted from, but what really stands out is his declaration that he's willing to die over the matter. Despite the fact that no-one is at all interesting in killing him, or has even thought of doing it. Just like no-one has even considered putting Warren in jail.
The pattern becomes clear - they're playing make believe. Exciting games where they are heroic martyrs battling for a noble cause, and the fact that there is no-one martyring them or forcing them to do anything hasn't stopped them for one second from playing such an exciting game. And I can't really blame them, when I was a small child I used to run around the backyard, hacking up orcs and blasting Russians, and the fact that there were no orcs and no Russians in my backyard never bothered me one bit, as long as I got to think of myself as the hero. Indeed, if I ever learnt how scary real orcs and real Russian invasions were, the game would have stopped being fun very quickly.
Warren, Colson and Morris are all running about in their parent's backyards, playing pretend games where they are heroic martyrs battling against horrible oppression. Does it matter that the oppression is entirely in their own heads? Well, it probably should, because they're grown men and there's a country to run.
In the meantime I guess the US as a whole should take pride in the level of religious freedom they maintain, so that clowns like these guys can go their whole lives without ever getting a real taste of oppression.
sebster wrote:if your organisation was specifically exempted from having to pay for contraception, then your religious freedom has been upheld.
Makes sense to me.
After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.
Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?
Wouldn't be surprised if that answer comes three years in the future in a Supreme Court ruling....
Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?
Your religious freedoms don't matter because you're not [insert group name here].
This whole "religious freedom" angle seems a bit absurd to me, as you can look at it from either perspective.
In addition, birth control pills have other rather significant medical uses, like in the treatment of endometriosis. IIRC the studies which supported the recommendation of universal coverage of birth control were based in part on its other uses, and in part on statistics about how children and families are healthier and better off when mothers have the capacity to space out their pregnancies by using birth control.
Prescription birth control pills help control wild hormonal swings in one's menstrual cycle as well.
This makes them quite valuable for, say, businesswomen, scientists, soldiers, students, mothers... up to and including women working in religious environments. Any woman really.
Mannahnin wrote:This whole "religious freedom" angle seems a bit absurd to me, as you can look at it from either perspective.
In addition, birth control pills have other rather significant medical uses, like in the treatment of endometriosis.
Truer words have never been spoken. If my oldest daughter hadn't had them, she would have literally bled to death.
The hormones in the BC told her body when to stop bleeding, finally.
Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?
Ultimately you can choose not to work at a private, religious institution. Can't really say that the private, religious institution can choose to ignore the requirements in the previous mandate or not hire anyone.
The scope and value of benefits packages has been a consideration in total compensation for... 80 years? 100? More? If free contraception is SUUUUUUCH a big deal, then ultimately private, religious institutions won't be able to recruit qualified candidates and be forced to raise their compensation packages to a point where individuals can use the incremental increase to go buy contraception.
Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?
Nope, because you are still free to acquire it on your own. Or you could choose a different employer if it's that important to you.
Mannahnin wrote:children and families are healthier and better off when mothers have the capacity to space out their pregnancies by using birth control.
There are other ways of spacing out pregnancies other than by use of the birth control pill or abortifacients.
"We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government."
http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=12382
I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt. Frequently the choice is between one employer or no employer as there's nothing else out there.
Melissia wrote:I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt.
I cannot possibly believe that private religious institutions employ such a significant amount of the American workforce that there is no alternative job market.
And the things about hands you're dealt, is there's always other hands.
Melissia wrote:I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt.
I cannot possibly believe that private religious institutions employ such a significant amount of the American workforce that there is no alternative job market.
And the things about hands you're dealt, is there's always other hands.
Yes, there's always unemployment.
That way you can get the contraceptives on the government's dollar because theyr'e a medical need (at least, I think medicare/medicaid will do that, it probably varies by state).
I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt. Frequently the choice is between one employer or no employer as there's nothing else out there.
If the choice is between unemployment and getting a job, you're right.
However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.
biccat wrote:However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.
Yes, IF there is another job available, and IF you get a chance to switch to that other job, and IF you get accepted and hired by that other job, and IF they don't take advantage of the situation to try to reduce their health care costs.
biccat wrote:However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.
Yes, IF there is another job available and IF you get a chance to switch to that other job and IF you get accepted and hired by that other job.
It's a long list of IFs.
And yet millions of people annually get that choice.
I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt. Frequently the choice is between one employer or no employer as there's nothing else out there.
If the choice is between unemployment and getting a job, you're right.
However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.
Right, that's why we have so many people underemployed in addition to the people that are unemployed.
biccat wrote:And yet millions of people annually get that choice.
Millions more don't.
And to fall back to my standard response: so what?
Contraception is ~$600-700/year. While that's not exactly peanuts, it's something you can consider when accepting a job or not.
Easy E wrote:
biccat wrote:However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.
Right, that's why we have so many people underemployed in addition to the people that are unemployed.
I'm sure you'll join me in hoping that President Obama doesn't get reelected so we can work our way out of this economic slump. During normal times lots of people change jobs. I recall a statistic that was bandied about recently that (something like) during normal times ~4 million/year change positions, but recently it's been down to about 2 million/year. I will try to find the information.
It appears that it is overall beneficial to people and to society if every woman has free access to contraception.
Making it more difficult and expensive for poorer women and families, and for women and families during an economic downturn (whenever free availability and choice of jobs is not a given), seems counterproductive.
Mannahnin wrote:It appears that it is overall beneficial to people and to society if every woman has free access to contraception.
I agree with this.
Mannahnin wrote:It appears that it is overall beneficial to people and to society if every woman has free access to contraception paid for by someone else.
I disagree with this.
It isn't free, someone has to pay for it. The question is: who pays?
sourclams wrote:So it's not about religion at all, it's 'poor people deserve free contraception'.
Yes. And religious people are getting in the way of poor people getting their free contraception by refusing to pay for it.
sourclams wrote:So is the real issue you're speaking to, "Contraception should be free for poor people"?
lol, "real issue".
You make it sound like I've somehow lied about and hidden what I believe. But I've made my assertion clear that contraception should be available to everyone.
The debate is about what is the most proper method of doing so.
biccat wrote:And to fall back to my standard response: so what?
Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.
Melissia wrote:Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.
We don't have a free market. We have a heavily regulated market.
And yes, even the current market does do a good job of providing for the financial needs of "most of the population". That's why the poverty level has remained between 10% and 20% for the last 50 years. I'd call that 'most'.
Seriously, we should be taxing these clowns. Further if you take my tax dollars then I'm sorry but you should have to play by the rules that everybody else does. Just because your kool aid is Jesus flavored shouldn't exclude you from the rules of civil society. If you don't want to hand out contraceptives then quit taking federal dollars. Unfortunately like many things in this country Christians seem to get a free pass. They are allowed to take federal dollars and discriminate, as well as refuse to hand out condoms. Three cheers for religious freedom!
biccat wrote:And to fall back to my standard response: so what?
Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.
Well, you're wrong. The free market does do a good job providing for the financial means of most of the population. You're taking the worst off and arguing that since they aren't provided for then everyone isn't provided for.
The free market is far more efficient and effective at creating and distributing wealth than government.
Seaward wrote:If you pay taxes, you're already paying for someone's birth control pill, or their, to use the Republicans' new favorite word, abortifacients.
I'm also already paying for Egyptian arms. Does that mean the government can (or should) require me to buy an M16 and ship it to some guy in Cairo?
Birth control pills aren't abortifacients (depending on how you define the term I suppose). The original proposed regulation would require coverage of both traditional birth control and abortifacients.
My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...
One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.
Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.
biccat wrote:And to fall back to my standard response: so what?
Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.
Well, you're wrong. The free market does do a good job providing for the financial means of most of the population. You're taking the worst off and arguing that since they aren't provided for then everyone isn't provided for.
The free market is far more efficient and effective at creating and distributing wealth than government.
Seaward wrote:If you pay taxes, you're already paying for someone's birth control pill, or their, to use the Republicans' new favorite word, abortifacients.
I'm also already paying for Egyptian arms. Does that mean the government can (or should) require me to buy an M16 and ship it to some guy in Cairo?
Birth control pills aren't abortifacients (depending on how you define the term I suppose). The original proposed regulation would require coverage of both traditional birth control and abortifacients.
I'm aware. That's why I used the term "or." It's indicative that what follows is not the same as what preceded.
What's amusing to me is that you guys probably could have made more traction on this issue if you hadn't knee-jerked to religious liberty. It's of course not a religious liberty issue at all, but the inaccuracy of the claims isn't what's going to turn people off; it's the far right playing victim yet again.
Seaward wrote:I'm aware. That's why I used the term "or." It's indicative that what follows is not the same as what preceded.
You may have also been using "or" to refer to an alternative word choice.
For example, I like to eat chicken, or to use the scientific term Gallus gallus.
Seaward wrote:What's amusing to me is that you guys probably could have made more traction on this issue if you hadn't knee-jerked to religious liberty. It's of course not a religious liberty issue at all, but the inaccuracy of the claims isn't what's going to turn people off; it's the far right playing victim yet again.
What on earth is the argument if not religious liberty: "We don't think health insurers should have to pay for contraceptives"? Given current state and federal insurance mandates, the only basis for that claim is religion.
In fact, how is this anything other than an issue of religious liberty?
I prefer that we (collectively) provide for the minority. You could consider it a charitable desire, but IMO my life is better when we provide for the poor. Enlightened self interest.
And I dispute that it's just the poor, anyway. A lot of folks who are well above the poverty line still don't have a lot of choices when it comes to available work.
sourclams wrote:So where else in the world woudl you like to live?
Again, get out of the minority.
Not picking a fight, but the whole if you aren't happy leave America arguement makes no sense to me.
Why wouldn't I want to stay and improve my birthplace?
And getting out of the minority isn't as clear cut, black and white as your letters are.
Mannahnin wrote:I prefer that we (collectively) provide for the minority. You could consider it a charitable desire, but IMO my life is better when we provide for the poor. Enlightened self interest.
Already do. Both personally and on a societal level. It's virtually impossible to starve to death in this country, for example.
The poor are provided for. It's the degree of provision. A poor person should be fed. No disagreement. Poor people don't necessarily need iPhones. It was months ago, but I remember watching on one of the more left-of-center news networks (MSNBC or something like it) a self-described poor person waiting for the first-of-the-month government checks to hit so that she could go buy food for her family. Except that she was monitoring her bank account via iPhone. No amount of subsidization is going to make up for misaligned spending priorities. And no, I'm not using that one individual as 'proof' that the poor can't manage money, but I simply believe that the level of provision overall is adequate.
And I dispute that it's just the poor, anyway. A lot of folks who are well above the poverty line still don't have a lot of choices when it comes to available work.
And...? Ultimately, your life decisions culminate in some level of financial status, if that is important to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Next he's gonna be arguing that I should bleach my skin white if I wasn't already pale
I'm an ethnic minority. I find that race is virtually meaningless as a sole determinent of success.
I am less than 30 years old. My family growing up was, at best, middle-middle income, but probably endured in low-middle income for the formative years of my life, as my Dad was a gradeschool teacher and my Mom a homemaker. That would be roughly a high 2nd or low 3rd quintile.
Currently, with my wife a homemaker as well, my family is either a high-fourth or a low-fifth quintile. I've still got my peak earnings years well ahead of me, so I ultimately expect to be solidly within the top 5% at some point in my life.
sourclams wrote:Opportunity is what you make of it.
The term "opportunity" is just another term for luck. IE, you just got lucky.
Nothing more.
The most determinate factor in your financial status when you are an adult is your family's financial status when you were a child. The amount of effort you put in to life is less important than this statistically speaking.
Mannahnin wrote:I prefer that we (collectively) provide for the minority. You could consider it a charitable desire, but IMO my life is better when we provide for the poor. Enlightened self interest.
Already do. Both personally and on a societal level. It's virtually impossible to starve to death in this country, for example.
The poor are provided for. It's the degree of provision. A poor person should be fed. No disagreement. Poor people don't necessarily need iPhones. It was months ago, but I remember watching on one of the more left-of-center news networks (MSNBC or something like it) a self-described poor person waiting for the first-of-the-month government checks to hit so that she could go buy food for her family. Except that she was monitoring her bank account via iPhone. No amount of subsidization is going to make up for misaligned spending priorities. And no, I'm not using that one individual as 'proof' that the poor can't manage money, but I simply believe that the level of provision overall is adequate.
This is Ronald Reagan's welfare queen arguement. One person on TV with an iPhone does not represent the thousands of people who benefit from those first of the month checks. Every person you've ever seen on TV waiting for thier check added together isn't even 5% of them. Further, can you say what circumstances she came by that phone? Perhaps her husband bought it before he got fired by Mitt Romney. Or maybe they bought it before their second child was diagnosed with cancer and they where dropped by their insurance company. But to see a woman on TV waiting for her government check who had an iPhone and use that as an example for why a safety net is adequate is a bit off to my mind.
As far as starving to death goes there's several large organizations that disagree. Feedingamerica.org says 1 in 8 Americans are dealing with a lack of good food. That seems like alot.
Easy E wrote:Don't worry, SourClams, psychologists have proven that everyone makes up self-myths about their life to justify where they are. Too bad you just don't realize your own "I'm a self-made man" myth yet.
I'm interested in this "psychologists have proven" bit. Do they use induction, direct, exhaustion, or some other proof? How was the proof established?
Easy E wrote:Don't worry, SourClams, psychologists have proven that everyone makes up self-myths about their life to justify where they are. Too bad you just don't realize your own "I'm a self-made man" myth yet.
I'm interested in this "psychologists have proven" bit. Do they use induction, direct, exhaustion, or some other proof? How was the proof established?
It isn't free, someone has to pay for it. The question is: who pays?
The fact that you ask this is scary. The person who is working is paying for it with their labor. The price for labor was just increased by the cost of contraception.
Simple as that.
Easy E wrote:Don't worry, SourClams, psychologists have proven that everyone makes up self-myths about their life to justify where they are. Too bad you just don't realize your own "I'm a self-made man" myth yet.
I'm interested in this "psychologists have proven" bit. Do they use induction, direct, exhaustion, or some other proof? How was the proof established?
Conclusory articles are not generally accepted as proof of some statement.
I could say that 1+1=2 because 2=1+1, but that's doesn't rise to the level of 'proof.'
Tun_Tau wrote:
It isn't free, someone has to pay for it. The question is: who pays?
The fact that you ask this is scary. The person who is working is paying for it with their labor. The price for labor was just increased by the cost of contraception. Simple as that.
Could you guarantee everyone a free Ferrari? Why or why not?
Mannahnin wrote:This whole "religious freedom" angle seems a bit absurd to me, as you can look at it from either perspective.
In addition, birth control pills have other rather significant medical uses, like in the treatment of endometriosis. IIRC the studies which supported the recommendation of universal coverage of birth control were based in part on its other uses, and in part on statistics about how children and families are healthier and better off when mothers have the capacity to space out their pregnancies by using birth control.
Dont people also take Birthcontrol pills or make periods more regular?
The president announced a compromise last week in the dispute. Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals would not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to women who work at such institutions. Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage-- a continuation of current law.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced Obama's compromise last week soon after the president's announcement, saying the proposal raises "serious moral concerns," according to a statement posted on its website.
The Bishops had this to say on February 10 (presumably the denouncing that CNN reported above):
Today, the President has done two things.
First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.
Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:
It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.
It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider.
[...]
But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.
I'm having difficulty with this: on the one hand, the President says that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not have to offer contraceptive coverage BUT on the other hand insurers must offer the coverage free of charge to their employees. The Bishops, meanwhile, seem to understand the compromise as forcing the institution to pay for the coverage if the employee and the insurer agree to the coverage. Can anyone who has been following this more closely speak to this apparent contradiction? If I understand what the Bishops are saying, and if that is true, then it appears that President Obama's compromise is no compromise at all.
Also, the Bishops' position seems to be that no one at all should have to pay for an insurance plan that covers contraception if they have moral objections to contraception. Personally, I think this goes too far. How is the argument different than saying any religious objection (I wonder if atheistic moral objections apply?) on the part of employers should estop the requirement to provide certain coverage to employees? What about Christian Scientist employers (religiously affiliated or secular), for example? Beyond that, how about an employer who morally objects to the mandate of any employer-provided healthcare?
@Biccat- Nice subject change. I'm impressed. I have a feeling you are a good lawyer.
All- Since the US Health Care system is based "mostly" on employer sponsored group plans, than it makes sense that all "employers" be asked to cover contraceptives. What I want to know is why churches as employers were getting a special exemption in the first place?
helgrenze wrote:My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...
One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.
Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.
Apparently there is a line that says 'go forth and multiply.' If I recall correctly, it was said to the Jews when they took Israel awafy from the Caananites by military force (i.e. murdering them). How that relates to people in the modern and getting-quite-overpopulated world I'll never know.
But then people have been misinterpreting the Bible for... pretty much ever. Take the whole Sin of Onan thing. Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife according to tribal tradition (after taking advantage of said tribal tradition to have sex with her, he pulled out to avoid knocking her up in defiance of said tradition). How that got roped into prohibiting masturbation I just don't get. The circumstances of the Sin of Onan are totally not applicable to the modern world, but there's that 'don't spill your seed into the dust' line that everyone fixed on, ignoring the whole rest of the story.
And let's not forget the big one, "Love thy neighbor." THAT'S the one where us Americans REALLY fall short. The more we have, the more we despise the unfortunates who have not...
I don't know about you guys, but I prefer taking my religious interpretation from anonymous atheists* on the internet over people who study religious texts all day and have dedicated their lives to the cause of their religion.
People who spend their lives studying a religion often do so after 20 years of religious indoctrination, limiting their desire to ask the difficult questions.
Case in point: Bad people go to Hell. EVERY preacher says this.
Go look in the Bible and tell me where it says this. The closest I've found is the bit about the righteous living eternally in the Kingdom of Heaven while the sinful suffer eternal death. Hell is only mentioned as 'the place where Satan and his minions fell to.'
Theorectically, all Christian religious doctrine goes back to the Bible. In practice, there's a lot of extra garbage that has been added on because of the politics of religion. Look at the Baptist's ban on alcohol. And yet, Jesus' first public miracle in the Bible was to change water into wine, an alcoholic beverage. So... where did the ban come from, when Jesus obviously thinks it is okay? I can see an argument about overindulgence and drunkeness, but that certainly doesn't mean a total ban is necessary! When the Moslems ban drinking, at least they can point back to the words of Mohammed to justify it. Just... don't ask about mead, okay?
Well, for one thing the King James Bible is probably the worst one you can read. It has a large number of inaccuracies and textual flaws (shared with other Revisitus based Bibles). Although I'll also point out reading King James doesn't mean you subscribe to being Angelican. In the US it's just popular because of British roots and its actually quite pleasant to read compared to some translations.
people who study religious texts all day and have dedicated their lives to the cause of their religion.
There are three kinds of Theologians. Religious fanatics who care less about scholarly study and more about justifying their own actions. Religious folk who legitimately want to study their faith. And Athiests who seem more interested in insulting the religious than actually studying them (defined loosely). Generally the only ones worth listening too are the middle group as the other two are too busy grinding axes to produce anything worthwhile. Just cause someone is a theologian doesn't mean they know anything about what their talking about.
Straying a bit afield there. As I understand it, the topic is that certain religious people are overreacting to a proposed law because that law will not actually apply to them rather than because their religious beliefs are somehow invalid.
Based on (how I've understood) what I've read, it seems like even given President Obama's compromise, many religiously affiliated institutions will still be subject to the proposed law. I'm still asking for clarification if anyone would care to discuss the topic at hand rather than dumping on religious beliefs.
Manchu wrote:Straying a bit afield there. As I understand it, the topic is that certain religious people are overreacting to a proposed law because that law will not actually apply to them rather than because their religious beliefs are somehow invalid. Based on what I've read, it seems like even given President Obama's compromise, many religious-affiliated institutions will still be subject to the proposed law.
I think it's been well established by now that the OP was incorrect.
I agree that the President's "compromise" was no such thing, but the President gave the appearance of defering to the demands of the Church so, as far as most media outlets are concerned, the issue has been resolved.
helgrenze wrote:My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...
One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.
Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.
To be fair, there's a lot about Roman Catholicism that isn't in the Bible. It's not particularly biblically-based compared to some of the newer Protestant sects.
Biblical fundamentalism in general is actually a fairly recent phenomenon.
biccat wrote:I agree that the President's "compromise" was no such thing, but the President gave the appearance of defering to the demands of the Church so, as far as most media outlets are concerned, the issue has been resolved.
I don't know if most media outlets consider the issue resolved but I think a lot of people do. Regardless of what was reported, what people appear to have heard was "Obama backs down." But he hasn't backed down at all, as I noticed from CNN's converage.
Melissia wrote:What, do you expect me to go and scan and upload something from a book?
You profess to be a scientist, certainly you know what "proof" means.
You aren't my peer (IE, standards for proof and citations via peer review) by any scientific definition, Biccat, nor my professor (Ie standards for proof and citation for academia). You're a random person on the internet. So no, I don't know what YOU, specifically, mean by "proof".
If you want me to quote a peer reviewed study and provide links and quotes and images and gak for you, no. I'm not going to. Too much work (classwork is more important than convincing you, which is a futile attempt anyway as you're unlikely to change your opinion no matter what I post) and just as importatnly, psychology isn't my field so I am simply posting the hypotheses and conclusions of those whose field is psychology instaed, and if you don't like that , I could hardly care any less than I do right now.
I gave you a link. The link discussed NUMEROUS examples of this subject in scientific literature. That is a source as far as I'm concerned for this discussion. If you are actually interested, perhaps you can do further research in to the works by these authors-- the authors and their works were named in the link, making it easier by far than merely doing research without such assistance. If you're not interested, why the hell would I bother anyway?
Melissia wrote:I gave you a link. The link discussed NUMEROUS examples of this subject being discussed in scientific literature. If you are actually interested, perhaps you can do further research-- the authors and their works were named in the link, making it easier by far than merely doing research without such assistance. If you're not interested, why the hell would I bother anyway?
The idea that anything is "provable" especially as applied to every person, as Easy E attempted to do, in the realm of psychology is absurd. Which is why I asked for verification of his "proof." I have no idea why you decided to jump on that sinking ship.
I sincerely hope you don't consider that link to be in the body of "scientific literature." I suspect you're intelligent person, I'm reasonably confident that you know exactly the point I was making.
The link discussed NUMEROUS examples of this subject being discussed in scientific literature
Namely, the link mentioned the works of psychologists whom had published pieces on the subject. The link was a meta discussion, as it were, not an actual study itself. I never claimed it was a study.
helgrenze wrote:My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...
One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.
Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.
To be fair, there's a lot about Roman Catholicism that isn't in the Bible. It's not particularly biblically-based compared to some of the newer Protestant sects.
Biblical fundamentalism in general is actually a fairly recent phenomenon.
AFAIK until the late 30s protestants were against contraception, including the Anglicans.
The Catholic Church has never permitted abortion. The principal of double effect applies to medical procedures which have pregnancy termination as an unwanted side effect
As another point the more we seem to use contraception the more 'unwanted' pregnancies and abortions there are which is a bit ironic.
Also
Spoiler:
Abortions for some, minature American flags for others!
Phototoxin wrote:As another point the more we seem to use contraception the more 'unwanted' pregnancies and abortions there are which is a bit ironic.
There were plenty of unwanted pregnancies back then too. The difference is back then women had fewer social rights so it was mostly unheard.
Nevermidn shotgun weddings.
I don't think there were as many unwanted pregnancies back then. This is mainly because women didn't have a whole lot of options in life other than to be a mother. So, might as well get pregnant and settle down to a life of motherhood.
An increase in unwanted pregnancies means that women are increasingly able to have goals other than just motherhood. So, its is a good thing to have more unwanted pregnancies.
My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.
Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?
Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.
Is that not true?
That is my understanding as well.
Yes, he caved. But, at least he didn't give up everything. That's progress, right?
Melissia wrote:He compromised, which is hardly "caving"...
He held all the cards. And, he folded. That's caving.
Huh. I think what he did was fairly cagey.
He managed to get the same end result (Contraceptive coverage), and minimized the "Freedom of Religion" line, because the religous organizations aren't paying for the Contraceptives directly.
gorgon wrote:... there's something hypocritical about RC taking a stance with no biblical basis.
In Roman Catholicism, you don't need a biblical passage that says "thou shalt not X" in order to have a teaching against X. The teaching against contraceptives was only promulgated in 1968 -- you know, because the pill wasn't around in Christ's time. The idea is that sexual intercourse has a unitive as well as procreative value (lots of biblical basis) and that the arbitrary rejection of life is therefore contrary to marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:He gave some while not giving everything.
I don't know that he gave up anything. To me, it seems he wants to implement the same plan worded slightly differently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?
I could be wrong but I think the problem is that all insurance coverage is paid for by all premiums. Under the "compromise," the insurer has to provide the coverage but the employer will not have to pay a higher premium tied specifically to that cost. But obviously the cost still exists and must still be covered by the premium. Therefore the premium goes up and the employer still pays for it, just not specifically. Is that right?
Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.
Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?
Original plan:
Religious groups must pay for health insurance that includes contraception coverage.
New plan:
Religious groups must pay for health care insurance. Insurers must provide contraception coverage for free.
Left unstated: insurers will increase prices for religious groups to cover contraception coverage.
Someone has to pay for it. Providing free contraception is going to impose a cost on the insurers who will pass that cost down to the religious group.
However, I think that the President also said that churches specifically won't be required to follow the contraception mandate, which is actually compromising. If so, good for him.
True. Of course, so is everyone else if all premiums go towards paying for the coverage. I have a feeling not all premiums go towards the coverage of everyone else.
By that rational that all premiums are used to pay all claims, we must end contraceptives for all Insurance contracts, because some person's money might go towards funding something that they find immoral.
Instead, I seem to recall premiums and claims beign segmented by the type of coverage. IF the Religous organization is self-funded (like many large employers) then they only pay their own premiums as administrative costs, and self-fund the actual claims. In that case, I'm guessing the Contraceptive costs come out of the overall profits of the Insurance Company. Which is something I can see Insurance Companies objecting too.
sebster wrote:....Except that people on the religious right continue to freak the feth out that they're religious freedom to not have anything to do with contraception is being ignored, despite
It was quite the puzzler, until I came across this quote from Rick Warren.....
Is there something you wanted between "despite" and "It was quite the puzzler?
biccat wrote:In fact, how is this anything other than an issue of religious liberty?
The revised version doesn't threaten anyone's religious liberty. It requires insurance companies to provide the contraceptive coverage, not the "religion-affiliated" institutions.
Your argument's against government-regulated healthcare. It has nothing to do with religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.
Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?
Original plan:
Religious groups must pay for health insurance that includes contraception coverage.
New plan:
Religious groups must pay for health care insurance. Insurers must provide contraception coverage for free.
Left unstated: insurers will increase prices for religious groups to cover contraception coverage.
Someone has to pay for it. Providing free contraception is going to impose a cost on the insurers who will pass that cost down to the religious group.
However, I think that the President also said that churches specifically won't be required to follow the contraception mandate, which is actually compromising. If so, good for him.
Churches were never required to follow it.
And yeah, someone has to pay for it. Churches get higher premiums? Crying shame. Bet those tax breaks will help.
The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.
The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.
In Germany you can remove the sum of money you donate for good causes (including churches because they do a lot of social welfare here) from the taxes you pay. In the US the churches have to pay taxes on this?
Dark Scipio wrote:In the US the churches have to pay taxes on this?
They don't pay taxes on much of anything. Income directly from their main purpose of operation is not taxable at the federal, state or local level. So contributions from members would not be taxed. Pastors do pay taxes on their salaries. Properties owned can be a bit complicated. They don't pay property tax on properties directly associated with their charitable purpose - like the church itself, a fellowship hall, or parsonage. But if they own property they rent out to earn money for the church, they do pay property taxes on that. And they might be subject to income tax on the rent if the property is mortgaged, although not if it isn't - I know that sounds strange, but laws are strange sometimes.
The idea that a bunch of old religious men in a commite should be deciding what the other 52% of this nation does relating to birth control is absurd.
This argument is about as dumb as the "Anti-gay rights" one, people are still people. If these damn right wingers who want the government out of there hair so bad why do they keep wanting to pass laws against things?
Rick Perry last year after making a speech about "Keeping the Government on Capital Hill", tried to pass a bill in Texas to make gay sex Illegal.
People got up in arms over the lady with an I phone, yet I see lots of preachers
and their wives driving Mercedes, Lexus, etc... And they live in opulent homes that
are, or border on, mansions. The churches pay for it. And they are tax exempt.
Most forms of birth control are available for free here (including condoms), meaning that you are free to act upon your own conscience, and not subject to the irrational prejudices of your employer, as far as pregnancy is concerned. This seems to be a sensible approach.
Alexzandvar wrote:The idea that a bunch of old religious men in a commite should be deciding what the other 52% of this nation does relating to birth control is absurd.
Not surprisingly, I totally agree.
Seaward wrote:Churches were never required to follow it.
Read my first post in this thread. I link to the statement by Kathleen Sebelius (sp?). It's quite clear from her statement that churches would be required to follow it.
biccat wrote:Presumably you will now agree that the original, January 20 announcement was a violation of religious freedom?
Yes, I did, and was happy when the amendment came through, and figured the issue was done and dusted with that.
Only to then see a variety of religious figures continue to carry on, in increasingly dramatic language about the desperate measures they're totally willing to take to fight the horrible, horrible oppression that isn't happening to them.
At which point it becomes clear that these people are far less interested in actual oppression, and just in playing make believe games where they pretend they're being brave and noble men fighting against oppression they like to pretend exists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?
You would still be covered, it's just that insurer would wear the cost, and not be able to charge the company for it.
Seriously, the individual gets coverage, and the employer is not forced to pay. We all do the happy dance, and move on with our lives.
Unless, of course, you like pretending that you're oppressed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:In order to stay relevant, you have to continually up the stakes.
Exactly. They're not saying dramatic things because dramatic things need to be said, but because they want people to pay attention to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:Again, get out of the minority.
Huh?
Have we actually seen someone claim that the answer to gender imbalance is for women to stop being women? Black people should just stop being black?
Well, that's certainly a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:I'm an ethnic minority. I find that race is virtually meaningless as a sole determinent of success.
You can find whatever you want, it doesn't change what is true.
Go look up average incomes per racial groups in the US. If race wasn't a factor, they'd all be the same, and yet black men make 2/3 of what white men do on average.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I'm having difficulty with this: on the one hand, the President says that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not have to offer contraceptive coverage BUT on the other hand insurers must offer the coverage free of charge to their employees. The Bishops, meanwhile, seem to understand the compromise as forcing the institution to pay for the coverage if the employee and the insurer agree to the coverage. Can anyone who has been following this more closely speak to this apparent contradiction?
No, the religious bodies do not pay one cent. An insurer cannot charge the body for the provision of contraception to their employees. This law is presently in operation in several states, including California where Rick Warren, who I quoted in my OP, has his church. Rick Warren has not been charged one cent in premiums for contraception under healthcare plans.
But now he pretends he will be, when it moves from California law to Federal law. This is because Rick Warren is playing a roleplaying game of him vs the evil Feds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:Biblical fundamentalism in general is actually a fairly recent phenomenon.
Well, the drive to place the bible first and foremost dates back to 1517, so it isn't that new, but the most recent form of biblical fundamentalism as seen in the US dates back, more or less, to the Scope Monkey trial. And then you look at individual elements of that fundamentalism that are treated as coming from an inerrant, absolute truth, such as life beginning at conception, and those ideas can be as young as the Happy Meal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:As another point the more we seem to use contraception the more 'unwanted' pregnancies and abortions there are which is a bit ironic.
That's not even slightly true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.
Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?
The only thing your missing is that people like to pretend they're oppressed, even when it's really obvious they're not being oppressed in the slightest.
To be fair, it wasn't until I saw the last of the quotes in my OP that I finally got my head around how ridiculous some people can be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:He held all the cards. And, he folded. That's caving.
Nonsense. He reached a conclusion that ensured everyone has access to contraception, while making sure no religious employer would be forced to pay for something that is against their religion.
That isn't caving, that's solving an otherwise difficult position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I could be wrong but I think the problem is that all insurance coverage is paid for by all premiums. Under the "compromise," the insurer has to provide the coverage but the employer will not have to pay a higher premium tied specifically to that cost. But obviously the cost still exists and must still be covered by the premium. Therefore the premium goes up and the employer still pays for it, just not specifically. Is that right?
The issue you're missing is that contraception is a fairly trivial amount compared to other insurance costs. As such, it becomes a fairly trivial issue for the insurer to simply wear the cost, write it off against the overall profit made on that individual, or spread it across the cost of provision of contraception cover to all their other clients.
I'l repeat again, this isn't a new piece of law. It's been in place in several states for years. California has had it in place since 1999.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrabb wrote:
sebster wrote:....Except that people on the religious right continue to freak the feth out that they're religious freedom to not have anything to do with contraception is being ignored, despite
It was quite the puzzler, until I came across this quote from Rick Warren.....
Is there something you wanted between "despite" and "It was quite the puzzler?
Yeah, cheers for the pick up. It should have read 'despite being granted a specific exemption for their religious beliefs' or something like that.
Good to see someone actually read my post
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.
The issue is the small number of megachurches that make serious bank. When you've got a Starbucks stand in the foyer you're not really on the same level as a local church bringing in $120 in Sunday morning tithe.
That said, I've never felt there's any sense in taxing overall income anyway, even for the big money churches, because the organisation is not-for-profit - all the money it makes is then spent on infrastructure, good works and the like, so that long term the overall profit will be zero anyway.
The only real 'profit' type element is what is paid to ministers, and that is taxed. So ultimately, I don't see the problem with tax as it is at present.
LordofHats wrote:
The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.
Their tax exemption results from their 501(c)(3) status. Some have argued that many churches regularly violate the ban on taking part in a political campaign, but that regulation is rarely enforced, and many non-religious 501(c)(3)s exhibit similar behavior.
My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.
LordofHats wrote:My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.
That's like saying low-volume retail stores shouldn't be taxed because they get so little money. Not the way the world works. You tax the corporation (in this specific case, the Archdiocese of the Catholic church).
Also, going by the Bible, not necessarily what people actually do, a person is required to give 10% of their annual income to the church. So, even if you've only got 100 people, who lets say make an average of 30K a year, that church (according to Biblical law) would pull in 300K a year. Again, I can't speak for what they actually take in, nor what religions other than Catholicism require.
LordofHats wrote:My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.
I think my dad's church has like 60-70 regular attendees, but not entirely sure how much they get in terms of donations; definitely no more than 50,000 but that would still subject them to corporate taxes at a ~22% rate.
That wouldn't kill his church (They have a 500 grand endowment.) but it would kill most of them, if not right away, then slowly over time. Though, really, once a church owns is facilities, membership becomes more important than money.
LordofHats wrote:My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.
Most corporations never make a profit, while Walmart and the like are just exceptions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I think my dad's church has like 60-70 regular attendees, but not entirely sure how much they get in terms of donations; definitely no more than 50,000 but that would still subject them to corporate taxes at a ~22% rate.
That wouldn't kill his church (They have a 500 grand endowment.) but it would kill most of them, if not right away, then slowly over time. Though, really, once a church owns is facilities, membership becomes more important than money.
At the end of the day, given a church operates on a not-for-profit basis, they should be spending everything they bring in anyway, because there's no investors to be distributing profit to.
So they'd have a tax bill of 22% on their $50k, but then they have claims for the pastor's salary and any other assistants, utilities, and then the rest would be services provided to members, and donations to the needy.
The place you'd get hit is with infrastructure investment, as you'd be taxed up front on the income, but only able to claim the deduction in subsequent years as depreciation. And a new cost for bookkeeping - suddenly Mavis working one day a fortnight with Quicken wouldn't really cut it.
The net effect would be almost no new tax revenue, while you'd jerk around a whole lot of smaller churches.
Why prods have any problems with it I have no idea. Perhaps this:
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Genesis 1:28
Ok, Land full, job done, time to stop.
This bit of counter-theology rests on the principle there can be too much of a good thing. As that principle is firm in the Bible there is a logical case against.
For example:
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18
Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. 1 Timothy 5:23
It irks me how the vast majority of the 'relgious right' are actually sortable with a two minute look at the Bible.
sebster wrote:
At the end of the day, given a church operates on a not-for-profit basis, they should be spending everything they bring in anyway, because there's no investors to be distributing profit to.
So they'd have a tax bill of 22% on their $50k, but then they have claims for the pastor's salary and any other assistants, utilities, and then the rest would be services provided to members, and donations to the needy.
If your church is only bringing in 50k per anum, and doesn't have a large endowment, its likely only the pastor is paid, and not very much. Say, 30-40k with no benefits, and 70-80 hours per week when averaged out (hours vary widely from week to week). My old man has been doing this for 22 years, he's got reasonable seniority in the denomination, and he puts in 60-70 hours a week for ~70k at a church with a massive endowment given its size.
Also, services to members is basically the same as having a staff pastor.
sebster wrote:
The place you'd get hit is with infrastructure investment, as you'd be taxed up front on the income, but only able to claim the deduction in subsequent years as depreciation. And a new cost for bookkeeping - suddenly Mavis working one day a fortnight with Quicken wouldn't really cut it.
Usually ministers do most of the bookkeeping in small churches. Sometimes they have a paid secretary, or volunteer help from a parishioner or a college student , but even they tend to handle little more than sending emails, and scheduling.
sebster wrote:
The net effect would be almost no new tax revenue, while you'd jerk around a whole lot of smaller churches.
For sure, I'm not saying there's a material incentive to tax churches. Some ministers advocate taxing churches because they see it as bringing the Church closer to the common condition, but that's about the only example of an incentive.
Orlanth wrote:Contraception is normally a Catholic bugbear.
This started as a complaint by senior figures in the Catholic church. It was jumped upon by the greater religious right wing noise machine, because they really like playing the oppression game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:If your church is only bringing in 50k per anum, and doesn't have a large endowment, its likely only the pastor is paid, and not very much. Say, 30-40k with no benefits, and 70-80 hours per week when averaged out (hours vary widely from week to week). My old man has been doing this for 22 years, he's got reasonable seniority in the denomination, and he puts in 60-70 hours a week for ~70k at a church with a massive endowment given its size.
Also, services to members is basically the same as having a staff pastor.
Cheers for the info. I've always been kind of curious, but wary of asking people in churches that I know, because it'd be kind of rude. The one church I once helped fix up their accounts was Catholic, and the Father was paid outside of the church's funding.
Usually ministers do most of the bookkeeping in small churches. Sometimes they have a paid secretary, or volunteer help from a parishioner or a college student , but even they tend to handle little more than sending emails, and scheduling.
I was basically going off my one experience above, it was the treasurer, a volunteer who worked one day a fortnight.
For sure, I'm not saying there's a material incentive to tax churches. Some ministers advocate taxing churches because they see it as bringing the Church closer to the common condition, but that's about the only example of an incentive.
That's a pretty interesting argument. Also kind of weird.
sebster wrote:
I was basically going off my one experience above, it was the treasurer, a volunteer who worked one day a fortnight.
Yeah, my dad has had 5 different churches, and only one sprung for an accountant (~200 regular attendance), otherwise he's done the books (Granted, he has an MBA, so he has some basic knowledge.), or had me do them.
Looking at his friends, across multiple denominations, most of them either had a basic familiarity with accounting when they started, or acquired one on the fly (Rule 1 in NPOs: never trust volunteers.).
biccat wrote:Presumably you will now agree that the original, January 20 announcement was a violation of religious freedom?
Yes, I did, and was happy when the amendment came through, and figured the issue was done and dusted with that.
However, as has been discussed upthread, the President's compromise was actually nothing of the sort.
s
Do you think that the cost to the insurer of "free" contraceptions will not be passed down to the church?
Also, what about church institution that self insure?
I personally don't give a gak about the contraception issue. I do care about government intrusion into religion in violation of the First Amendment, just as i have issues with religion intrusion into government. This is the one instance I must shout vive le France!
As it turns out, Frazzled, most American Catholics feel the same way. This isn't a theological issue at all. This entirely a political (and maybe legal) issue.
This was the absolutely stupidest move the President could make. One of the advantages to being an incumbent is that you get to pick your battlefields if not necessarily your battles. Now why on earth would you pick this as your battlefield? Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.
This issue is a sideshow that could overshadow the main event, which ought to be the economy. The last thing the President should do is make any part of this election cycle a referendum on health care reform. Even worse, the White House has blundered into the faux-revolutionary currents of popular sentiment. The trouble with this resurgent liberterianism is it's not just confirmed conservatives who find it appealing. Younger people, who often mistake cynicism for wisdom, also love the anti-authority sheen to this rhetoric. By stumbling into an Establishment Clause gak storm, the President has pushed these formerly apathetic or even sympathetic voters into agendas normally invisible to them. Most Catholics have no idea what the Bishops are saying on any given matter most of the time much less Protestants much less people for whom religion is a nonstarter. In this case, however, people from all of these groups suddenly find the Bishops' appeal convincing and relevant.
No one ever won a battle by underestimating their opponents, sebster. You can foolishly say conservatives are playing pretend but what they are really playing is politics. And they're doing great at it -- at least compared to Mr. Obama, at the moment.
Manchu wrote:
Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.
I'm willing to bet that most of the idealistic young people who got Obama elected (read: campaign staff, partisans, liberals, etc.) are not, by and large, hugely concerned with the Catholic position on birth control.
Hell, I know self-professed Catholics that don't care about the Catholic position on birth control.
Manchu wrote:
This issue is a sideshow that could overshadow the main event, which ought to be the economy.
As soon as health care reform passed it was going to be a central election issue, there is no avoiding it. The economy will also be a central issue, but if it continues to improve it won't define the campaign of any Republican candidate.
That being said, healthcare reform probably won't overshadow the economic issue, as its "fermented" long enough to become, basically, a formality. Any GOP candidate, that isn't Romney, will say the bill is an abomination because its expected, and Obama will defend it because its expected, and most people will have decided which expectation they hold well before the general begins.
This is going to be a very messy general election in which no one can run on a single issue., as the GOP primary has demonstrated.
dogma wrote:I'm willing to bet that most of the idealistic young people who got Obama elected (read: campaign staff, partisans, liberals, etc.) are not, by and large, hugely concerned with the Catholic position on birth control.
Hell, I know self-professed Catholics that don't care about the Catholic position on birth control.
And you know another one if you count me. That's kind of my point. It's not about Catholicism; it's not about birth control. From Obama's point of view, he'd like it to be about birth control and women's health and ultimately women's rights. But it's actually playing as a First Amendment issue in an environment of fundamentalists more concerned about the Constitution than the Bible.
dogma wrote:That being said, healthcare reform probably won't overshadow the economic issue, as its "fermented" long enough to become, basically, a formality.
Republicans would like nothing more than to frame this election as a referendum on health care and I agree that it's "fermented" long enough so that they'll have a hard time doing it -- unless of course the President allows them to do it, as with this debacle.
An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.
What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.
Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.
Manchu wrote:This was the absolutely stupidest move the President could make. One of the advantages to being an incumbent is that you get to pick your battlefields if not necessarily your battles. Now why on earth would you pick this as your battlefield? Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.
The President has been trying to pick a fight with the Republicans for at least the last 6 months or so. His speeches, policy proposals, budget, and even the latest Economic Report have been blatently political. He's trying to paint Republicans as the "do nothing" party, standing in the way of his brilliant leadership that would get us out of this economic mess if those darn Republicans would just pass his bills. He has had mixed results.
Manchu wrote:This issue is a sideshow that could overshadow the main event, which ought to be the economy. The last thing the President should do is make any part of this election cycle a referendum on health care reform.
I disagree. The last thing the President wants to do is make this election about the economy. Health insurance reform is a marginally winning issue because it's a Big Idea that is For The Poor. He also has the advantage that most of the act hasn't been implemented yet, which gives him cover to keep claiming that it will Fix Everything. In contrast, his record on the economy has been pretty poor and is highly visible. Unemployment is high, gas prices are high, recovery is still a long ways off, and his best argument - going after the rich - tends not to play well among his preferred demographic (educated middle class whites).
Obama's reelection was always going to be difficult - his political platform of radical change in Washington was doomed to failure. And now he's become entrenched in Washington, signaling to voters that his version of "change" actually meant "more of the same."
Actually, biccat, when I was trying to fathom why the President would choose a health care reg related to contraception as his battlefield, it did occur to me that the administration might not feel as confident about the economy as I'd hope. But no matter how nervous you are about unemployment rates or gas prices, throwing out a First Amendment debate right now is like covering yourself in bacon-flavored butter and jumping in the lion cage. Compared to the economy, this is a simple issue. You don't have to be a Tea Partier or a constitutional lawyer to say, "hey they can't do that." And a lot of folks who are otherwise sympathetic to Obama are saying just that.
Meanwhile, while health care reform is anything but "more of the same," it's been a lastingly fragile victory and is traditionally the bette noire of post-Regan Republicans (i.e., the etiology of the Tea Party). It's no coincidence that Newt Gingerich came back out of the wood work when he did. A lot of Americans who are the most worried about healthcare reform remember Newt as the St George to Hillary Clinton's dragon. And many if not most Americans have not felt any tangible benefit from the law anyway. If anything, the issue is even thornier than the economy -- at least the electorate is used to pretending that it understands the economy. By contrast, special interests and Republicans have been scaring the gak out of the American people regarding "socialized medicine" for the last twenty years.
Manchu wrote:But it's actually playing as a First Amendment issue in an environment of fundamentalists more concerned about the Constitution than the Bible.
I suppose my point is I doubt that this will tip the balance against Obama in the minds of anyone that currently favors him with respect to Republican X (For some reason that made me picture Romney as a less grateful Spartacus.). Sure, some Catholics might be swayed, but not that many.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but most people that support Obama aren't terribly concerned with the freedom of any person of any faith to "deny" (quotes to illustrate convenient lingo) someone birth control.
Manchu wrote:
Republicans would like nothing more than to frame this election as a referendum on health care and I agree that it's "fermented" long enough so that they'll have a hard time doing it -- unless of course the President allows them to do it, as with this debacle.
See, I'm not sure that they would. Its remote compared to the economy, and easily plays into the idea of obstructionism that the Democrats have cultivated for quite some time. It forces the GOP to hearken back to an issue that is, essentially, settled and make an argument that is similar to the one Obama used to sell it in the first place: "Healthcare is key to the economy!"
Were I a strategist advising a GOP candidate, I would tell him to make healthcare a rubber stamp issue (Basically, "I support the repeal of this bill!"), and center my campaign on economic issues until such time that they became fruitless (if they ever did). Basically, because this cycle is so unusual, and the general is likely to be so close, you want adaptability over commission.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
I disagree. The last thing the President wants to do is make this election about the economy.
No one wants to run on the economy. The GOP will because they have little choice, but it won't be an easy sell due to:
1) Partisanship.
2) Bush presiding over the initial recession, and bailout.
biccat wrote:
Obama's reelection was always going to be difficult - his political platform of radical change in Washington was doomed to failure. And now he's become entrenched in Washington, signaling to voters that his version of "change" actually meant "more of the same."
Eh, maybe. The disenchantment that followed from Obama's moderation in office is an important factor, but lots of committed liberals really hate the Tea Party and, by extension, the GOP.
Like I said before, its going to be a messy, and close, election.
dogma wrote:For some reason that made me picture Romney as a less grateful Spartacus.
I don't understand this analogy. Was there a grateful Spartacus? "Thanks for trying to kill me guys, sorry about the uprising."
dogma wrote:Were I a strategist advising a GOP candidate, I would tell him to make healthcare a rubber stamp issue (Basically, "I support the repeal of this bill!"), and center my campaign on economic issues until such time that they became fruitless (if they ever did). Basically, because this cycle is so unusual, and the general is likely to be so close, you want adaptability over commission.
If I were a strategist advising a GOP candidate I would tell him that the solution to the Obamacare 'problem' is twofold: repeal and replace (with something better). This appeases the base who want to repeal the law and takes away (somewhat) the President's argument that Republicans Hate Poor People.
Manchu wrote:Actually, biccat, when I was trying to fathom why the President would choose a health care reg related to contraception as his battlefield, it did occur to me that the administration might not feel as confident about the economy as I'd hope. But no matter how nervous you are about unemployment rates or gas prices, throwing out a First Amendment debate right now is like covering yourself in bacon-flavored butter and jumping in the lion cage.
I don't think the President thought that this is how the issue would turn out. I suspect he thought he had a winning issue on the "denying rights to women" argument that he would be able to use to bully the Republicans.
Manchu wrote:Compared to the economy, this is a simple issue. You don't have to be a Tea Partier or a constitutional lawyer to say, "hey they can't do that." And a lot of folks who are otherwise sympathetic to Obama are saying just that.
Well, I'm pretty sure they can do that. I don't think the mandate is unconstitutional, simply bad politics.
biccat wrote:
I don't understand this analogy. Was there a grateful Spartacus? "Thanks for trying to kill me guys, sorry about the uprising."
I was thinking of this scene...
...except replacing "Spartacus" with "GOP nominee".
biccat wrote:
If I were a strategist advising a GOP candidate I would tell him that the solution to the Obamacare 'problem' is twofold: repeal and replace (with something better). This appeases the base who want to repeal the law and takes away (somewhat) the President's argument that Republicans Hate Poor People.
The problem with that is you lock yourself into providing something better. Replacement is something you bring up if it turns into a significant issue down the line, having forced your policy consultants to slave over a hot computer doing research.
More properly, its a great "gotcha" moment in the making.
"My opponent has no plans to improve American healthcare!"
dogma wrote: Sure, some Catholics might be swayed, but not that many.
As I said, it's not Catholics he has to worry about. And no one besides the Catholic Bishops cares at all about birth control. But plenty of people, including those who might find Obama sympathetic, care about the First Amendment.]
dogma wrote:. . . and make an argument that is similar to the one Obama used to sell it in the first place: "Healthcare is key to the economy!"
I think that's what they're doing, broadly. They're saying this whole approach to government has kept things stagnant.
dogma wrote:No one wants to run on the economy.
You're talking to biccat but you're speaking to me.
Manchu wrote:As I said, it's not Catholics he has to worry about. And no one besides the Catholic Bishops cares at all about birth control. But plenty of people, including those who might find Obama sympathetic, care about the First Amendment.
In my experience people only care about the 1st in selective terms, but I don't have data to back that up.
biccat wrote:I don't think the President thought that this is how the issue would turn out. I suspect he thought he had a winning issue on the "denying rights to women" argument that he would be able to use to bully the Republicans.
You can't effectively bully Republicans like that. Conservatives have never accepted the argument that contraception/abortion is an issue of women's rights. Again, you don't have to be the President of the United States to see that this issue won't play like that. It was a blunder that I suspect had more to do with the administration's way of doing things internally than Obama's politics. I mean, sure I can believe he'd like churches to have to do this. But should he have seen that fight not playing directly into the hands of his enemies' rhetoric? These aren't new enemies. Republicans tried to paint him as an enemy of the Constitution in the wake of HCR. This is a far more compelling opportunity and -- lo and behold -- it even ties back to opposition of HCR! What sebster is dumping on as immaturity is a feeding frenzy conservatives would be stupid to ignore. Almost as stupid as the President, who himself chummed the waters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:In my experience people only care about the 1st in selective terms . . .
And that is exactly why this issue is so powerful. You don't need to be really committed to get fired up. That's political gold.
Manchu wrote:And that is exactly why this issue is so powerful. You don't need to be really committed to get fired up. That's political gold.
I understand the argument that you're making, but I just don't see this particular issue being compelling en masse. Certainly not more so than the furor over the individual mandate.
Easy E wrote:An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.
What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.
Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.
Wow like that has nothing to do with anything other than a cheap attack.
Easy E wrote:An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.
What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.
Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.
Wow like that has nothing to do with anything other than a cheap attack.
Eh, its not necessarily an attack. Its not a lie to state that megachurches largely depend on the personality of their founders, generally the current pastor, to achieve and maintain their "mega" status. This may, or may not be, bad.
It is, however, wrong to state that most megachurches claim that they are non-denominational. They do tend to be evangelical, if not in name, then in practice. That's how they get so big. Well, that, and the food court; Willow Creek has some damn fine food.
Manchu wrote:
Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.
I'm willing to bet that most of the idealistic young people who got Obama elected (read: campaign staff, partisans, liberals, etc.) are not, by and large, hugely concerned with the Catholic position on birth control.
Hell, I know self-professed Catholics that don't care about the Catholic position on birth control.
Someone once said that Roman Catholicism is actually two religions. You have the religion that the clergy preaches, and the religion that the people actually believe and practice.
I think only the most devout American Roman Catholics follow the Vatican's doctrine regarding contraception. It's just hopelessly contrary to how modern people live their lives, and therefore is inevitably going to be discarded by many. I'm not even sure the church's stance is even rooted in morality. My mother -- who loves the church and attends and gives regularly -- has said for years that money drives most of their decisions. It's a surprising opinion coming from her, but if you heard her argument, I think you'd agree it's a compelling one.
Looking at it from that perspective, I wonder how much of the Vatican's view on the matter has to do with keeping a steady flow of new Catholics coming into the church. I mean, if Catholic couples start having 1.9 children...that really doesn't help grow the religion, does it?
gorgon wrote:
Looking at it from that perspective, I wonder how much of the Vatican's view on the matter has to do with keeping a steady flow of new Catholics coming into the church. I mean, if Catholic couples start having 1.9 children...that really doesn't help grow the religion, does it?
The Catholic Church is nothing if not hesitant to change.
It (Rome) is, however, starting to realize that if it wants to stay relevant it has to keep up with modern society. Its one thing to promulgate from a pulpit when you're speaking only to you specific congregation, but if you're doing the same from the seat of the Pontiff it gets tricky.
To make colorful and potentially humorous remarks: lots of Catholics in the US consider the Emperor to be a backwards step vis a vis JP2.
gorgon wrote:I think only the most devout American Roman Catholics follow the Vatican's doctrine regarding contraception.
Replace "devout" with "rigid." No puns intended.
My mother -- who loves the church and attends and gives regularly -- has said for years that money drives most of their decisions.
She may love the Church but she doesn't seem to know much about how parishes or dioceses actually run.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:To make colorful and potentially humorous remarks: lots of Catholics in the US consider the Emperor to be a backwards step vis a vis JP2.
Just right of Palpatine might be a better description, as long as you're not actually talking about Ratzinger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I understand the argument that you're making, but I just don't see this particular issue being compelling en masse. Certainly not more so than the furor over the individual mandate.
It's part of a package deal. "What do you get with Obama? A plan to strip of freedom and/of conscience that doesn't even rehabilitate the economy."
dogma wrote:To make colorful and potentially humorous remarks: lots of Catholics in the US consider the Emperor to be a backwards step vis a vis JP2.
It seems a good parable, but I'm not quite sure how Jurassic Park 2 fits in. Is it representing Dominionism in a ecstatic state unleashed on non-traditionalists? I think that is what the T-Rex was supposed to mean anyway.
Where does the authority come from that allows a president to mandate that employers or insurance companies provide a good or service, and at what price?
Perhaps it's in the same paragraph that gives a woman the right to an abortion?
Manchu wrote:You can't effectively bully Republicans like that. Conservatives have never accepted the argument that contraception/abortion is an issue of women's rights.
It's not that he was trying to get Conservatives to accept the idea that contraception is a "women's rights" issue, it's that the electorate sees contraception/abortion as an issue of women's health, and was playing on that perception.
Manchu wrote:As I said, it's not Catholics he has to worry about.
I disagree. About 50% of Catholics voted for President Obama and the Church has generally (apart from the abortion coverage issue) been supportive of socialized health care. President Obama has a lot to lose in the Catholic vote.
That doesn't mean that Catholics won't support him because of this.
The Vatican has nothing to do with the national politics of the United States -- at least after appointing the bishops. Ratzinger's teaching on health care and economy has fallen on deaf ears among conservative Catholics in the US since Caritas in Veritate.
As for the bishops themselves, they did not merely oppose the abortion provision, no matter what they currently say. There was a huge clash between the bishops and the nuns over this issue and it wasn't because the nuns wanted to perform abortions in their hospitals.
Yes, just like other conservatives opposed to health care reform, the bishops lined up to say "we support health care reform -- just not this approach."
The yes, I would say that the lack of meaningful compromise is a sign that he hasn't "caved." Silly man has just stepped in it. Now he had to pretend that he wanted to.
Grakmar wrote:He should have held his ground and loudly declared that religious freedom is perfectly fine, but you have to follow the laws of the land.
Fortunately, we have things like actual political rights -- most especially those guaranteed under the First Amendment -- to rebuff such tyrannical decrees.
Grakmar wrote:I still think he caved. He allowed an organization to continue to discriminate against women because of some antiquated belief system.
Are health insurers required to provide free birth control to men?
That depends on medical need.
Keep in mind that birth control pills don't JUST do birth control, they also stabilize hormones and make the woman's life much more stable by reducing or eliminating the hormone extremes of the menstrual cycle.
Thus for some women it is actually a medical necessity for them to have birth control pills so that they can be productive members of society.
Grakmar wrote:He should have held his ground and loudly declared that religious freedom is perfectly fine, but you have to follow the laws of the land.
Fortunately, we have things like actual political rights -- most especially those guaranteed under the First Amendment -- to rebuff such tyrannical decrees.
We all accept that there are laws that impinge on religious freedom. Look no further than the FLDS to see an example. They believe that marrying (and having sex with) very young women is God's will. But, that doesn't mean that we have to repeal all the laws about age of consent. They're perfectly free to believe in that, but they just can't act on it.
The constitutional issue is that laws can't be made for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. Obama wasn't creating a law for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. He was just saying "All employers must provide this service." The fact that some Christian groups believe this is immoral is perfectly fine, but they should still have to provide that service.
Grakmar wrote:
He should have held his ground and loudly declared that religious freedom is perfectly fine, but you have to follow the laws of the land.
Yes, except that nearly EVERY "real" Christian sect follows the doctrine that they will follow the law of the land, unless it goes specifically against what the Holy Bible says. So far, I fail to see what ground the various religious organizations have to stand on in this issue... As a Christian I am saying that. As far as I am aware, the law would require these employers to OFFER the coverage; Nothing in the law (that I've seen or seen covered) says "If contraceptives are offered in your healthcare plan, you MUST take them, or else" To me, it's saying that as an employer you need to follow the laws of the land, offer whatever insane coverage is required, and if the employees dont want it, then they dont HAVE to take everything.
For example, if my employer offered full benefits for casts and surgeries to repair a broken arm, nothing in that plan says that I MUST use surgery and casts, should my religion prohibit me from utilizing any medicine other than God (there are some sects out there that believe something like this). It's kinda the same thing to me in regards to BC pills/other methods of control.
Grakmar wrote:I still think he caved. He allowed an organization to continue to discriminate against women because of some antiquated belief system.
Are health insurers required to provide free birth control to men?
That depends on medical need.
You haven't answered the question: Are health insurers required to provide free birth control to men?
This is a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.
Melissia wrote:Keep in mind that birth control pills don't JUST do birth control, they also stabilize hormones and make the woman's life much more stable by reducing or eliminating the hormone extremes of the menstrual cycle.
You're right, there are acceptable secondary uses for birth control pills. However: 1) those secondary uses can be obtained by non-birth control methods; and 2) secondary medical uses of birth control pills does not overcome the objection to other methods of birth control.
No one seriously argues that we should legalize heroin because THC can be effective at relieving pain. And even if THC is effective at relieving pain, that doesn't mean that marijuana should be legalized, especially given that synthetic THC is available as a more concentrated drug.
Grakmar wrote:The constitutional issue is that laws can't be made for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. Obama wasn't creating a law for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. He was just saying "All employers must provide this service." The fact that some Christian groups believe this is immoral is perfectly fine, but they should still have to provide that service.
What if all employers were prevented from giving employees a break at sunset? Would the fact that Muslims couldn't adhere to their religious views be a problem, or is this a neutral law?
Easy E wrote:An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.
What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.
Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.
Wow like that has nothing to do with anything other than a cheap attack.
Not meant to be an attack. Just something I learned that was interesting. How is it an attack?
Also, Manchu, I'm not sure people will see it as an attack on 1st amendment rights, instead some people might see it as the President trying to ensure fair access to Contraceptives no matter who the employer is. The question is, how many will see it one way; and will enough people see it one way or the other to impact the election?
On the face of it, going after a relatively small religous group that's leadership all ready doesn't like you in order to appeal to your broader base of support seems like a good tactical choice.
biccat wrote:
You're right, there are acceptable secondary uses for birth control pills. However:
1) those secondary uses can be obtained by non-birth control methods; and
What are they?
For example, how does one manage female hormonal issues without birth control?
biccat wrote:
2) secondary medical uses of birth control pills does not overcome the objection to other methods of birth control.
Grakmar wrote:The constitutional issue is that laws can't be made for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. Obama wasn't creating a law for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. He was just saying "All employers must provide this service." The fact that some Christian groups believe this is immoral is perfectly fine, but they should still have to provide that service.
What if all employers were prevented from giving employees a break at sunset? Would the fact that Muslims couldn't adhere to their religious views be a problem, or is this a neutral law?
It depends on why that law was created. I can't think of a legitimate reason for it (other than to specifically limit Muslims' religious practices), so that clearly is in violation of the 1st amendment.
dogma wrote:For example, how does one manage female hormonal issues without birth control?
I have no idea what the brand names are, but my wife took some when we were trying to have a kid. Apparently becoming pregnant levels everything out, because she didn't have to keep up the hormone treatment after she got knocked up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:It depends on why that law was created. I can't think of a legitimate reason for it (other than to specifically limit Muslims' religious practices), so that clearly is in violation of the 1st amendment.
The contraceptive mandate was enacted specifically because a certain group of employers refused to provide contraceptives.
biccat wrote:2) secondary medical uses of birth control pills does not overcome the objection to other methods of birth control.
But they do overcome the categorical objection.
Theologically, categorical objection is not at issue. The problem is not theological but rather a matter of practical policy, in which case the secondary uses do not overcome the categorical objection.
Manchu wrote:The problem is not theological but rather a matter of practical policy, in which case the secondary uses do not overcome the categorical objection.
They could be made to, provided the objection to birth control is not based on something like an aversion to casual sex.
Well, that's another level of mix up. Ostensibly, the only people having licit sex in the eyes of the Church are married heterosexuals. So the teaching against birth control is aimed at them. Of course, practically, all the rest of you are roped in, too, because extramarital sex acts are wrong at least in part for the same reasons that married people aren't supposed to use contraceptive -- the arbitrary rejection of the properly contextualized procreative act. The issue is fairly knotty because of the way it was worked out. You see, the majority report done by the Vatican commission concluded that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with contraception because it assumed a conception of marriage as a holistic relationship. The minority report, which Paul VI ultimately adopted in Humane Vitae, looked at the issue regarding the individual sex act. Now, a teaching about sex in marriage that is divorced from its context (that is, marriage) is easily applicable to all sorts of sex -- which, if you ask me, is what some of these conservative Italian bishops were really worried about in the late sixties, as opposed to whether married people were using contraception. After all, do you hear much about unwanted pregnancies within marriages, all other things being equal? Therefore the aversion, as you put, is indeed directed to casual sex as much as anything else and the Church's idea of casual sex is that it is not open to life.
Which is pretty ironic when you're also telling kids to forego contraceptives.
dogma wrote:Yeah, my dad has had 5 different churches, and only one sprung for an accountant (~200 regular attendance), otherwise he's done the books (Granted, he has an MBA, so he has some basic knowledge.), or had me do them.
Looking at his friends, across multiple denominations, most of them either had a basic familiarity with accounting when they started, or acquired one on the fly (Rule 1 in NPOs: never trust volunteers.).
Oh for sure. "I've done a bit of that in the past and would happy to help out for free" is among the most dangerous sentences in the English language.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:However, as has been discussed upthread, the President's compromise was actually nothing of the sort.
Do you think that the cost to the insurer of "free" contraceptions will not be passed down to the church?
If you'd read the thread, you'd have seen I already responded to that, and consider it not likely at all. Because contraception is very cheap, so why risk Federal penalties for the sake of allocating a pittance?
And more importantly, because such legislation already exists, including the state Rick Warren's church has been set up. And he never saw costs for the provision of contraception getting splashed across other areas, or at least never bothered to let it worry him. Yet now that it is to become Federal law he's freaking out. It's almost as if the whole thing is empty political theatre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:This was the absolutely stupidest move the President could make. One of the advantages to being an incumbent is that you get to pick your battlefields if not necessarily your battles. Now why on earth would you pick this as your battlefield? Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.
Except that people that side with the President can't be just assumed to vote for him. People keep on talking as if US presidential elections are decided by winning over the undecided centre, adding them to your typical voters and seeing if you've got the most votes. But the number of people in the centre who can't decide and who actually bother to vote is utterly trivial.
What matters is giving your side a reason to vote for you, either by making the other side seem utterly horrible, or by giving them something to actually like in you. In 2010 the Democrats were utterly smashed, because Republicans turned out in about the numbers they always turn out, whille Democrat numbers were way down, and it was largely a result of Obama and the Democrat dominated congress giving them very little to vote for. Since then we've seen some efforts to deliver for the liberal base (such as repealing DADT), combined with a lot of liberal friendly rhetoric - all aimed at closing the enthusiasm gap.
No one ever won a battle by underestimating their opponents, sebster. You can foolishly say conservatives are playing pretend but what they are really playing is politics. And they're doing great at it -- at least compared to Mr. Obama, at the moment.
Except Obama's numbers have improved massively over the last few months, and particularly over this nonsense noise over contraception.
I agree that it could hurt Obama, that depends on how the issue is framed in the media. If the Republicans win it sounds like it's the state forcing religious bodies to do something, and that's bad. However, if he wins it sounds like religious bodies trying to stop people outside of their faith doing something, and any Republican who hitches on to that wagon comes out looking like a theocrat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Hell, I know self-professed Catholics that don't care about the Catholic position on birth control.
In the developed world birth control use is as prevelant among catholics as it is among non-catholics, and it's been that way since, more or less, the 70s.
The celibate church hierarchy has their ideas, but the faithful moved on decades ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:Looking at it from that perspective, I wonder how much of the Vatican's view on the matter has to do with keeping a steady flow of new Catholics coming into the church. I mean, if Catholic couples start having 1.9 children...that really doesn't help grow the religion, does it?
And funnily enough, Italy has the lowest birth rate in the world, at just 1.7.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Well, that's certainly a thing.
Yes, sourclam's statment is probably the stupidest thing that I've seen said on this forum in the past six months.
It'd maybe make the top twenty for me... I think I probably read too many threads on here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:I still think he caved. He allowed an organization to continue to discriminate against women because of some antiquated belief system.
I don't think you've read the law. Women still get coverage, even if they work for a catholic organisation. It's just that the church doesn't pay for it, and instead the (very minor) cost is covered by the insurer.
This compromise meets the conditions of both parties. People who want birth control covered now have the majority of employers covering it, and people who want the beliefs of the church respected have it. This is the best kind of compromise, where the primary freedoms of every party are maintained.
sebster wrote:Except Obama's numbers have improved massively over the last few months, and particularly over this nonsense noise over contraception.
But this isn't a monthly news cycle. Actually, he gained a point coming out of January and has lost two in the wake of his "compromise" announcement. I'm not saying it's connected to the issue at hand. I'm also not saying these kind of polls reflect the wisdom of particular political tactics, i.e., I reject the substance of your retort as well as the approach.
sebster wrote:The celibate church hierarchy has their ideas, but the faithful moved on decades ago.
Trite and wrong. You might well bill this as "us v. them" but you don't seem to know who "they" are. As Catholics who have been paying attention pointed out, the hierarchs haven't seemed to bothered with contraception over the last few decades, either. If bishops haven't taught it all these years and almost no one actually observes it, the question for Catholics becomes a bit more nuanced than "the Church is out of touch."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:In 2010 the Democrats were utterly smashed, because Republicans turned out in about the numbers they always turn out, whille Democrat numbers were way down, and it was largely a result of Obama and the Democrat dominated congress giving them very little to vote for.
HCR? To quote Joe Biden, it was a "big fething deal." By the standards of FDR, LBJ, and even Nixon, this might well be the biggest fething deal in American politics. The 2010 failure of Democrats had to do with Republicans demoralizing the center that carried Obama to office and scaring a good many of them into doing more than doubting.
Manchu wrote:]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
sebster wrote:In 2010 the Democrats were utterly smashed, because Republicans turned out in about the numbers they always turn out, whille Democrat numbers were way down, and it was largely a result of Obama and the Democrat dominated congress giving them very little to vote for.
HCR? To quote Joe Biden, it was a "big fething deal." By the standards of FDR, LBJ, and even Nixon, this might well be the biggest fething deal in American politics. The 2010 failure of Democrats had to do with Republicans demoralizing the center that carried Obama to office and scaring a good many of them into doing more than doubting.
Yeah, except the base wanted single-payer and not a reheated Heritage Foundation idea from Newt's days as Speaker. I'm sure you can see why adopting a Republican idea on HRC and getting it passed despite their opposition didn't do much to motivate the Dem base right?
I didn't see a unified base rallying behind reheated HillaryCare, either. The "problem" with the Democratic party is old -- lots of interests that don't totally coincide except at the broadest level -- and it's not going away. It's inherent to a mainstream leftist outlook. (And, yes, I'd rather support a party that leans toward disorganized than toward authoritarian.) Even within the bluest segements, there are a lot of very distinct shades of blue. This is why Democrats always rely so heavily upon the broadest sympathies. Every card-carrying Democrat who writes off HCR in 2010 as "a reheated Heritage Foundation idea from Newt's days" might as well be voting Republican. How much more so the vast majority of Americans whose political sensibilities are fickle/insular? I think liberals need to realize that a lot of people they think are in their base are really not.
biccat wrote:You're right, there are acceptable secondary uses for birth control pills. However:
1) those secondary uses can be obtained by non-birth control methods;
I would LOVE to see your medical credentials so you can justify that statement.
EDIT: Okay, question aswererd.
Next question: Why should a non-Catholic nurse, doctor,or janitor for that matter, employed at a Catholic hospital be denied access to affordable contraception when they laws of the land say that it must be offered? Because a bunch of old men in funny hats are misinterpreting a single line from a 3000 year old document?
I'm sure if you look long enough, there is a line in the bible justifying women as second-class citizens... if even that high. Do we allow the old men in the funny hats to overturn women's sufferage too? Okay, bad argument. But the modern world doesn't work well if you try to run it via an ancient set of rules.
Manchu wrote:But this isn't a monthly news cycle. Actually, he gained a point coming out of January and has lost two in the wake of his "compromise" announcement. I'm not saying it's connected to the issue at hand. I'm also not saying these kind of polls reflect the wisdom of particular political tactics, i.e., I reject the substance of your retort as well as the approach
Are you honestly claiming that as evidence the issue has hurt Obama? Or that approval ratings are the core measure of electibility?
Trite and wrong. You might well bill this as "us v. them" but you don't seem to know who "they" are. As Catholics who have been paying attention pointed out, the hierarchs haven't seemed to bothered with contraception over the last few decades, either. If bishops haven't taught it all these years and almost no one actually observes it, the question for Catholics becomes a bit more nuanced than "the Church is out of touch."
Haven't seemed to have bothered is what you do when you've lost on the issue, but don't want to admit it. And yeah, there's nuance, what's your point?
HCR? To quote Joe Biden, it was a "big fething deal." By the standards of FDR, LBJ, and even Nixon, this might well be the biggest fething deal in American politics. The 2010 failure of Democrats had to do with Republicans demoralizing the center that carried Obama to office and scaring a good many of them into doing more than doubting.
Are you really, really going to claim HCR was successful policy? It was meant to be something for the progressives, but we all know it managed to be unpopular with every voting group.
sebster wrote:Are you honestly claiming that as evidence the issue has hurt Obama? Or that approval ratings are the core measure of electibility?
Re-read:
Manchu wrote:I'm not saying it's connected to the issue at hand. I'm also not saying these kind of polls reflect the wisdom of particular political tactics, i.e., I reject the substance of your retort as well as the approach
sebster wrote:Haven't seemed to have bothered is what you do when you've lost on the issue, but don't want to admit it. And yeah, there's nuance, what's your point?
My point is that you've framed this issue incorrectly because you don't actually know what you're talking about. Your analysis is actually just sentiment. As I have said in this thread, the majority opinion of the commission assigned by the Vatican to study the issue found nothing intrinsically wrong with birth control. The bishops have not been silent merely because the laity finds the teaching uncompelling.
sebster wrote:Are you really, really going to claim HCR was successful policy? It was meant to be something for the progressives, but we all know it managed to be unpopular with every voting group.
Which is why I have posted at least twice in this thread that the President should not let the Republicans make this election a referendum on HCR.
