Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

deleted

 Amaya wrote:

Is your hatred for all religions such a great and terrible force inside you that it blinds you to reality?

Have you ever been inside a religious thread that included me?

Okay... I don't know why I'm agruing so vehemently on this as I'm not Catholic. *shrugs*

I think Our differences is related to the interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment:

What does the establishment clause mean?
This is a difficult question that divides legislators, educators and members of the Supreme Court. It clearly means that the government may not establish a national religion. It also means that the government may not pass a law that favors one religious sect or group over another. To many, it also means that the government may not pass a law that favors religion over nonreligion. These individuals believe that the establishment clause erects a “wall of separation” between church and state.

Many agree that the establishment clause erects a degree of separation, but they simply disagree exactly how high that wall should be. Some believe that the government can acknowledge religious influences in public life. Others believe that even “In God We Trust” on money violates the church-state separation principle. Many — including Supreme Court justices — cannot agree on the constitutionality of posting Ten Commandments displays on government property.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
It is akin to forcing pacifists to fight a war.

If they are force feeding contraceptive pills to Catholics, then you might have a point.

But forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control is no different than forcing pacifists to pay for war. Which is actually happening right now.

Just because something is happening doesn't make it right.

Case in point, gay unions still being illegal.

wait... what?

GAY Unions? Is it really?

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
It is akin to forcing pacifists to fight a war.

If they are force feeding contraceptive pills to Catholics, then you might have a point.

But forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control is no different than forcing pacifists to pay for war. Which is actually happening right now.

Just because something is happening doesn't make it right.

Case in point, gay unions still being illegal.

And providing birth control does absolutely nothing to violate the rights of Catholics who choose to make a personal decision based on their faith to not take birth control.

deleted

Spoiler:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
It is akin to forcing pacifists to fight a war.

If they are force feeding contraceptive pills to Catholics, then you might have a point.

But forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control is no different than forcing pacifists to pay for war. Which is actually happening right now.

Just because something is happening doesn't make it right.

Case in point, gay unions still being illegal.

And providing birth control does absolutely nothing to violate the rights of Catholics who choose to make a personal decision based on their faith to not take birth control.

But forcing the Catholic institutions does violate a tenet of their faith.

I can assure you... they won't do it. If the Government takes them to court, it's a court fight they'll want.

To me, it means that (among other things) the government should treat religious organizations like it treats any other non-profit organization-- and in fact, it should treat several religious organizations as for-profit organizations, too, because that's exactly what they have become, but that's another issue for a different thread.

I have no illusion that this is likely to happen any time soon, however.

This thread is starting to generate alerts--let's all take a deep breath.

 Melissia wrote:
To me, it means that (among other things) the government should treat religious organizations like it treats any other non-profit organization-- and in fact, it should treat several religious organizations as for-profit organizations, too, because that's exactly what they have become, but that's another issue for a different thread.

I have no illusion that this is likely to happen any time soon, however.

Fair enough...

Plus there's that whole debate of what's really "for profit" and "not for profit".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
This thread is starting to generate alerts--let's all take a deep breath.

Okay... I'm done.

 whembly wrote:
But forcing the Catholic institutions does violate a tenet of their faith.

Shrug.

 whembly wrote:
I can assure you... they won't do it. If the Government takes them to court, it's a court fight they'll want.

At least until they lose. There's no guarantee that they'd win, after all-- even your own quote said that the supreme court justices are split on the issue.

 Melissia wrote:
To me, it means that (among other things) the government should treat religious organizations like it treats any other non-profit organization-- and in fact, it should treat several religious organizations as for-profit organizations, too, because that's exactly what they have become, but that's another issue for a different thread.

I have no illusion that this is likely to happen any time soon, however.

Religious entities have protections under the First Amendment that other NGOs don't have. Thats the essential and underlying difference.

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

Is your hatred for all religions such a great and terrible force inside you that it blinds you to reality?

Have you ever been inside a religious thread that included me?

Apparently these institutions not providing a service is somehow akin to denying it.

That is such an illogical assertion that it is mind boggling. You act as if they are actively preventing the use of contraceptives.


The fact you actually want temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to also be forced to do so shows that you are extremely intolerant of religion.

And apparently having these institutions providing contraceptives is somehow akin to forcing them to take contraceptive.

That is such an illogical assertion that it is mind boggling. You act as if they are actively forcing them to use contraceptives.

The fact you want employees of temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to be denied a benefit shows that you are extremely intolerant of the employees rights to make their own decisions.

And again, have you ever been inside a religious thread with me in it? Because your "you hate religion" statement aimed at me would probably have most of the atheists and anti-theists in here shake their heads.

That is one way to interpret it. A flawed way of course, but it certainly is one way to interpret it.

Wow, this thread has EPIC amounts of trolling in here.

I think we can all take a step back, and clap approvingly for the performance art displayed in this thread.

 whembly wrote:
Are you saying that a Catholic institution should be forced to cover it?

Yes, religious organizations should be required to follow federal and state requirements as if they were any other employer. There is a constant negotiation between society and groups religious as to how far their protections extend.
It is relatively common (but not universal) for states to require religious organizations to observe wage parity requirements even if this directly contradicts their beliefs. Federal and state law allows most religious institutions to ignore equal opportunity laws on the grounds of religion, but that is (I believe) the only protected class. A religious organization that was shown to discriminate on basis of sex, even if their doctrine ruled that women were to be subservient to men, would be held liable and would likely suffer fines or repercussions. It's certainly appropriate for a religious group to be able to say they require people of the same faith (otherwise they could be forced to employ diametrically opposed individuals to their own creeds), but religions are not given carte blance by society to fulfill their own agendas. A religion that promoted and followed through with human sacrifice would not be protected; and a Southern Baptist church that participated in slavery would not be protected. Both examples illustrates that many people will acknowledge freedom of religion not as an absolute grant, but a negotiated one.

When the ACA was written into law, it contained an implicit acknowledgement that access to contraceptives for society at large was to be expected. That a particular religious faith objects to contraceptives has to be weighed against the good of each individual's access to contraceptives or other procedures deemed necessary for well-being. Christian Scientists would object to the requirements for certain vaccinations, for instance; and yet, society at large still expects even those children to be vaccinated for the good of the larger populace. There isn't a clear dividing line, and each side has their compelling arguments.

That line is further muddied when you try to place a large umbrella over an organization. Just because the Catholic administration doesn't want to pay for contraceptives, doesn't mean that an individual Catholic should be denied access to them. Most American Catholics actively use contraceptives, despite their religious administration's admonitions. Should a small group of individuals at the top of an organization be the final authority for anybody who ties themselves to the organization, even loosely? Are you primarily a Catholic, or an American? Americans get access to contraceptives (as written into law), Catholics do not. Which association trumps the other?

It is also worth noting that nothing prevents the Catholic church from dropping health insurance coverage on their employees. They could even provide salary adjustments to offset the cost of procuring private insurance for individuals, which would allow the church at large to reconcile their religious beliefs of not supporting contraceptives with the new law. However that would be an expensive addition to their costs, and as such they appear to be ignoring that option (beyond the ethical issue of not providing health care).

Individuals should always be able to practice their faith as they choose, but organizations have different rules. The second you have two people in a group, there are differences of opinion and the obligation under the constitution is to ensure that neither person in the ground is infringed upon. Religious organizations operate within the confines of society at large, and as such have to accommodate our desires as much as we accommodate theirs.

deleted

Amaya wrote:Religious Organizations and the Catholic Church are exempt from the portion of the mandate requiring the provision of preventive care (aka contraceptives). The fact you are either unaware of this, do not care, and are yet still arguing that actual religious organizations should be required to violate their tenets shows that you neither respect their right to have beliefs and are intolerant of religions.

Citation please.

Amaya wrote:You routinely fail to counter the fact that employees are entirely capable of seeking contraceptives on their own.

How is me not giving you an apple keeping you from purchasing an apple?

You're sidestepping the point: it's not that I can't get an apple on my own; it's that you are legally obliged to give me an apple and you're refusing to because you think your rules supercede those of society.

deleted

Amaya wrote:Look it up yourself.

Myself and others have been patient enough with you to provide you with lessons that you should have learned in grade school civics and social studies class. Me, not being as familiar with the US laws on the matter as I am with those of my own country, would be appreciative if you would kindly return the favour and save me the time.

Amaya wrote:
Unless the government is providing the health care (in which case a business should have no say in how taxpayer money is spent) then the money is being provided by employer as a bonus to whatever salary or wages the employee receives, correct?

Benefits such as discounts, health care, stock options, etc are provided because they are non taxable income that is cheaper for the employer to provide than increased income and as such alluring for both the employer and typically in the case of health care, the employee. Now the employer can simply decide not provide health care if classified as a small business.

So your argument is that religious businesses should be able to have their cake and eat it too? Because what you appear to be arguing is that you believe a business should be allowed to pay for health care and receive said tax benefits while also telling its employees which elements of the health care they are allowed to partake in? I must be interpreting that wrong, because I think you're smarter than that.

Amaya wrote:I have several issues with this.

1) The government is dictating how private benefits/income are being provided. This is intrusive.

If it grants the business a tax break to do so, then such is the price of being given that tax break.

Amaya wrote:2) As small businesses are not required to provide health care they may be disinclined to do so because of religious convictions. This doesn't help anyone.

This is not a factor that can be given consideration. It's like saying that women won't be hired anymore because they are supposed to earn equal pay, so we can't legislate that they should have equal pay in order to avoid the disinclination of small businesses to hire women.

Amaya wrote:3) Larger business are required to pay a fine. A profitable business could just laugh this off since the fine isn't anything significant (something like $2000 yearly for each employee after the first 30 I believe).

If that's true, then the content of the health care doesn't matter.

Amaya wrote:4) This violates religious freedoms in the case of religious businesses. I'm thinking of organizations that are not attached necessarily to a religious entity, but provide only religious based materials such as Focus on the Family. Why any non Christian would work for that business is beyond me especially if they dislike religion.

This point is completely irrelevant. However, just to placate you, I can easily turn this around and say that businesses are currently required to provide health care that includes contraceptives in the US, and why any of these religious businesses would want to set up shop in a country with these regulations is beyond me.

Amaya wrote:5) There is no option to provide contraceptives for medical issues other than as a means to prevent pregnancy.

This is where your ignorance is really shining, man. There are many uses besides the prevention of pregnancy for birth control pills.

Amaya wrote:I think simply supplying contraceptives for legitimate medical concerns other than avoiding unwanted pregnancies is entirely reasonable for religious businesses. Better yet, I think instead of having the business provide health insurance have them provide non taxable income of a sufficient amount to purchase health insurance that can only be used for health insurance and medical emergencies. While that might be a little loopy, it avoids the "forcing religious business to provide contraceptives" issue.

So your solution is for religious businesses to provide a paycheque bonus of the cost of prive health insurance, but only if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control? Don't you find it a little hypocritical to talk about infringing on rights, choice, etc. and then suggest that the employees be given a Hobson's choice wherein they can buy any kind of health insurance they want, so long as it's the health insurance the employer says is acceptable?

deleted

I guess you'd better explain it to me, then.

Also, don't forget the rest of the big ol' post

deleted

Yeah, you're gonna hafta explain what you meant. 'Cause I'm just not getting anything different. You complaint is... what? That contraception is given to people for the prevention of pregnancy, but not for other medical reasons? So does that mean your solution is to hand out birth control and say "now, this is for cramps and headaches, and nothing more" and somehow that will placate religious businesses?

And if health insurance costs $180 per month, your solution is to pay employees another $180 per month, but only so they can buy health insurance? Not only can you not control that, but that money becomes taxable income.

There have been a lot of "if you don't know what I mean you are just being obtuse" posts, I decided that there really isnt any point in debating this anymore.

deleted

So here's the deal: I'm growing tired of this. Amaya, your points are becoming increasingly frayed. Recently you have begun using shotgun arguments in this thread, and my best efforts to engage them generally get ignored when you have no logical counterpoints. But I've been thus far tolerant of that. However, now you have begun to take the rude position of a snarky adolescent, and thus my patience has begun to wear thin. I'm normally happy to engage in a proper debate, and If I have misinterpreted something you have said and asked for a clarification, then that is all that I can do before continuing our discourse. Unfortunately, "you figure out what I meant to say" is not a part of that, and as such I am done.


For levity, here is a funny animal clip. I feel it is relevant.

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
Maybe you should learn to read, but Azazel is being atrocious.

Pots and kettles, Amaya.

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
The fact you actually want temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to also be forced to do so shows that you are extremely intolerant of religion.

Out of this list, very few of the groups that could be represented by those buildings actually oppose contraception.
Roman Catholics and Orhtodox Jews oppose it, with Islam it varies, and very few other religions have any opposition. So the only objection that many of those groups could have would be the fact that they might have to spend some money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
Look it up yourself.

Why should he? You've said that something is the case, the burden of proof is on you.
If he had said that they legally weren't exempt, you would have asked him for evidence, because he would have to prove that he wasn't making it up.