So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it?

[Filliam H. Muffman]

Acer wrote:
Apparently, a significant percentage of Catholics disagree with or actively ignore the ban. If the Church were doing its job, its members would not use the services even if available, making the whole thing a moot point.

Partly this.

I think it is partly a battle between the Church getting it's hands into everything and wanting to be able to use "religious freedom" defense as the excuse to control the lives of people who are not Catholic, versus the government trying to get full medical coverage for the non-Catholic that work for those businesses.

[haikuman]

"""It's really all about Government being able to force people into doing something they believe is unethical. Is THAT something you agree with ?"""

The Catholic Church has bigger fish to fry when it comes to ethics me thinks . Mentioned politely and with
"NO" attack on you Sir Cbelt.

Once the Church enters the arena of business they should expect to be treated like other businesses.
This church in particular has a very nasty record of looking out for parishioner rights imho.

[Rolando]

Pops wrote:
I don't know. This one is a real problem for me. Though an atheist with some serious concerns about the Catholic Church, I can understand the problem with forcing them to provide coverage which contradicts serious theological and moral issues for them.

Yet, providing an exemption would seem to open up a huge can of worms where other private companies would be able to pick and choose based on some set of personal beliefs of a CEO or board of directors.

I don't think you are alone.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=anti+abortion+atheist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
My opinion on abortion is as secular as it is religious. Human life is not a duck or dog or snail. Life is the first right. Without ones life, all other rights are moot.

Libertarians for Life

[cbelt3]

haikuman.. no arguments that the Church does not have clean hands. I'm afraid that the history of any organized religion is quite bloody.

And yet... The real argument is not over history, or child abuse, but over the constitutionality of forcing a religious organization to fund medical supplies that it believes unethical, and medical procedures that it finds anathema at its very core.

If this can happen, where are the limits ?
Can we force Jews to not circumcise ?
Can we force Muslims to eat Pork ?
Can we force Vegans to eat Meat ?
Can we force PETA members to wear Fur ?

and so on...

[mattkime]

Unless I've misunderstood something, nobody is forcing catholics to use birth control or have abortions. Coverage under health plans is being forced. i'm not a theologian, but I doubt the Bible specifies what can and can't be covered in insurance policies.

Yes, some Catholics are going to be very much against this policy. However, its my experience that most Catholics lean liberal with their politics and openly disagree with their church on a number of topics.

This will pass rather quickly.

cbelt3 wrote:
haikuman.. no arguments that the Church does not have clean hands. I'm afraid that the history of any organized religion is quite bloody.

And yet... The real argument is not over history, or child abuse, but over the constitutionality of forcing a religious organization to fund medical supplies that it believes unethical, and medical procedures that it finds anathema at its very core.

If this can happen, where are the limits ?
Can we force Jews to not circumcise ?
Can we force Muslims to eat Pork ?
Can we force Vegans to eat Meat ?
Can we force PETA members to wear Fur ?

and so on...

[$tevie]

cbelt3 wrote:
I'll state this VERY simply.

1- The Democratic Party has made access to Abortion and Contraception a "Women's Rights" issue. And those who disagree are happily labeled "Misogynistic". Fine, great, politics in action.
2- To sell it, Abortion and Contraception has also been labelled a "Public Health" service.
3- People are allowed to refuse Immunizations (which are at the heart of Public Health) for "Religious or Ethical issues".
4- Church organizations which hold Abortion especially and Contraception somewhat to be against their principles are being forced to PAY to provide them as part of their health insurance programs.

Can you see the conflict between points #3 and #4 ? When someone can refuse an immunization that is the center of true public health (you get sick, other members of the public will get sick too) and NOT refuse to provide procedures and medications that affect the health of one individual only ... and use the same reasoning ?

It's confusing as hell.

(Note... a huge majority of American Catholics pay for their own contraceptives. There was usually a line at the drug store to buy condoms after 5 PM Saturday 'Date Mass'. )

Why is my question so difficult for people to answer? It's a simple non-agenda-driven question and NOT a set-up for agenda-driven responses. In what sense is the Church "paying" for these services? Do the premiums actually go down or something if they aren't "participating"?

[Gutenberg]

Can Catholics force non-Catholics to return to the Dark Ages? That's the question. The Catholic Church should not interfere with non-Catholics' right to contraception. Period. If the Catholic Church chooses to hire non-Catholics--and it DOES have the right to discriminate, being a religious entity--then it must allow them to follow their own beliefs.

[Ted King]

cbelt3 wrote:
haikuman.. no arguments that the Church does not have clean hands. I'm afraid that the history of any organized religion is quite bloody.

And yet... The real argument is not over history, or child abuse, but over the constitutionality of forcing a religious organization to fund medical supplies that it believes unethical, and medical procedures that it finds anathema at its very core.

If this can happen, where are the limits ?
Can we force Jews to not circumcise ?
Can we force Muslims to eat Pork ?
Can we force Vegans to eat Meat ?
Can we force PETA members to wear Fur ?

and so on...

A better way of putting that in this context is - can a kosher deli owner be forced to have pork on his menu?

But let's flip that around. If religious freedom means that religious institutions and all their affiliated activities cannot be constrained by the government, then - can a hospital run by a religious institution refuse to treat a gay person because doing so went against their religious belief? Or a black person?

If we treat religious freedom as an absolute principle, then the answer to those question would be, yes, they can refuse to treat people based only on the person's sexual orientation or race. I suppose some people will say that we should treat religious freedom as an absolute principle, but I don't think most people would agree and I certainly do not.

But I do agree that religious freedom is important even though I am an atheist. So, like with so many things, it's not a matter of absolute principles, but where to draw the line. Did the Obama administration draw the line where it imposes overly much on religious freedom. It is a tough call. When it comes to abortion, I can understand that requiring the paying for that is drawing the line too far, but with contraception I'm not so sure. The reality is that in practice the vast majority of people use contraception, and I think that practical reality goes a long way towards trumping religious freedom. Also, most people anymore are paying a significant part of their medical premiums along with the contribution from their employer which mitigates against this being wholly about the religious freedom of the employer.

[$tevie]

Gutenberg wrote:
Can Catholics force non-Catholics to return to the Dark Ages? That's the question. The Catholic Church should not interfere with non-Catholics' right to contraception. Period. If the Catholic Church chooses to hire non-Catholics--and it DOES have the right to discriminate, being a religious entity--then it must allow them to follow their own beliefs.

See, that's what I'm thinking too. Why fiddle with federal policy when the Church could have their own policy that you sign an agreement that you won't use contraceptives etc. while you work for them.

[Gutenberg]

The question here is denial of women's health services. The First Amendment guarantees right to worship as an individual right. The individual right trumps the group's. The group--the Catholic Church--cannot force non-Catholics to observe its dogma.

Here is the text of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What it states is that the nation shall not establish a national religion. Then it goes on to guarantee the individual right to worship. It does not grant any church or religion the right to behave however it pleases. The United States prohibits animal and human sacrifice, for instance. It prohibits polygamy. And it prohibits a religious entity from refusing basic care to any specific group of people.