Obamacare and religious freedom.

[sandy whitelinger]

So if it becomes federal law that homosexuals do have the right to be married, do you think churches should have to perform ceremonies for them, even if they disagree theologically with the practice?

Are you suggesting that government compel churches to perform marriage rights that violate their tenets?

 

[fantome profane]

So if it becomes federal law that homosexuals do have the right to be married, do you think churches should have to perform ceremonies for them, even if they disagree theologically with the practice?

As the law stands now no Church is obligated to preform any marriage if the choose not to. There is no reason that would change.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

My idea is that, with churches having tax exempt status, they need to stay out of government affairs. As long as they do this, then they should be exempt from the law.

Let's get back to this statement. You are saying that as a tax exempt organization that a church can disregard law. You do realize that this is not Biblical?

 

[Alceste]

Ok, so I am going to have to side with the employees rights here, over the rights of the employers. If you are a cleaner who works for this organization you should have exactly the same rights and exactly the same access to healthcare as a cleaner who works for any other organization.

My answer may be too specific for what the op intended, if this was just an example. But that is my answer. I am in favour or reasonable religious accommodation, but what is or is not reasonable depends on the specific case.

The accommodation is that nobody is forcing the nuns to use birth control themselves. It's just part of running a business and hiring employees that their federal legal rights must be honored.

 

[YmirGF]

It's just part of running a business and hiring employees that their federal legal rights must be honored.

One wonders how long it will be before those federal legal rights include a bottle of wine, dinner and a movie. Oh wait, they already have food stamps... Never mind...

 

[LuisDantas]

For a while now I stand convinced that there is never any good reason to demand the government to treat religious people differently from non-religious people.

Whenever some sort of special treatment is considered necessary, it should be offered. But its justification and consequences should not rest on religious status. Most of all, it should not be disallowed on religious grounds either.

That is not only fair policy, but also the only way I can think of to protect people from a government that gets to decide who counts as religious and who does not; and it is a fairly effective way to ward against excessive religious privilege at the detriment of laypeople or non-believers.

Differentiated treatment is not a bad thing. Its availability depending on government recognition of one's religious status, however, is.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Are you suggesting that government compel churches to perform marriage rights that violate their tenets?

No, just the opposite. It sounds to me like you're suggesting this, however.

Let's get back to this statement. You are saying that as a tax exempt organization that a church can disregard law. You do realize that this is not Biblical?

I'm not worried about what the bible says, I'm not a Christian. And I'm having some trouble trying to figure out what you're saying.

What I'm saying is this: a religious organization should not be required to follow a law that violates their tenets, as long as they meet a specific set of criteria, namely, that said organization does not advocate any political stance.

 

[Tumah]

I don't understand. Why can't they just not use the contraceptives available to them? The American government allows me to eat pork and I don't see that as a breach of my religion. I just don't eat it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I don't understand. Why can't they just not use the contraceptives available to them? The American government allows me to eat pork and I don't see that as a breach of my religion. I just don't eat it.

This is a good point, and would include debates about abortion and homosexual marriage. If you don't like it, if you don't believe it's right, don't do it. That's one of the prices that religions have to pay to live in a free society.

 

[fantome profane]

. What I'm saying is this: a religious organization should not be required to follow a law that violates their tenets, as long as they meet a specific set of criteria, namely, that said organization does not advocate any political stance.

Ok, so my religion does not advocate any political stance. So can I do crack? Can I sell crack? Can I keep slaves? Can I marry and have sex with 10 year old children? Can I beat and abuse children? Can I deny my children food and medical care?

All of these thing have been done and claimed to be following the tenets of religion. Just being religious and apolitical is not enough to exempt you from the laws.

Decisions about religious accommodation need to be made on a case by case basis. This may seem like a non-answer, and maybe it is. But it is the way we should approach this. Simple absolute answers don't work.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ok, so my religion does not advocate any political stance. So can I do crack? Can I sell crack? Can I keep slaves? Can I marry and have sex with 10 year old children? Can I beat and abuse children? Can I deny my children food and medical care?

All of these thing have been done and claimed to be following the tenets of religion. Just being religious and apolitical is not enough to exempt you from the laws.

Decisions about religious accommodation need to be made on a case by case basis. This may seem like a non-answer, and maybe it is. But it is the way we should approach this. Simple absolute answers don't work.

Point taken.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't understand. Why can't they just not use the contraceptives available to them? The American government allows me to eat pork and I don't see that as a breach of my religion. I just don't eat it.

The Bible teaches Christians to not tempt others to sin. I am assuming, since the op article is unclear on the nuns position, that this is the issue. It is again assumed that the nuns position is that contraception is a sin.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ok, so my religion does not advocate any political stance. So can I do crack? Can I sell crack? Can I keep slaves? Can I marry and have sex with 10 year old children? Can I beat and abuse children? Can I deny my children food and medical care?

All of these thing have been done and claimed to be following the tenets of religion. Just being religious and apolitical is not enough to exempt you from the laws.

Decisions about religious accommodation need to be made on a case by case basis. This may seem like a non-answer, and maybe it is. But it is the way we should approach this. Simple absolute answers don't work.

Bingo! It seems I recall some issues years ago about western American Indians wanting to take peyote as part of their sacred rites and it was refused.

 

[4consideration]

I don't understand. Why can't they just not use the contraceptives available to them? The American government allows me to eat pork and I don't see that as a breach of my religion. I just don't eat it.

I think a closer, (but even this is not exact) example may need to include something like: if the federal government required you to provide and contribute directly to the purchase of pork (even if the other person thought it was beneficial, but you thought it not) would you find the requirement for you to be involved in that action to be a violation of your religious rights?

I think this issue falls within a discussion of conscientious objection, in requiring direct involvement in the procurement of certain things/activities that is a direct violation of one's religious beliefs or deeply held sense of right and wrong regarding one's own behavior -- and not about a paycheck that allows employees to choose such purchases on their own.

edit: It did not occur to me (until I looked into the matter some) that there are currently a number of medications on the market that contain pork products. Do you think that a requirement for you to include and pay for coverage for specific medications that contain pork products would be any sort of violation of your religious beliefs or conscience on the matter?

 

[LuisDantas]

Then it comes down to whether the nuns have the right to demand the privilege of not respecting the freedoms of others.

Which, of course, must be answered with a definite "no".

 

[4consideration]

Then it comes down to whether the nuns have the right to demand the privilege of not respecting the freedoms of others.

Which, of course, must be answered with a definite "no".

I don't see it as quite that extreme.

I don't see anything that would put the nuns in the position of in any way stopping or prohibiting their employees from obtaining contraceptives, but simply that they would not have direct involvement in it. I see a big difference in not being involved in someone else's activity and interfering with their freedom to do it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see it as quite that extreme.

I did not think of it as particularly extreme, either. But ultimately it is what it is, and we should not rely on outside circunstances to protect the employees from their objections to following the law.

The newspiece says that accomodations have been proposed for a third party to provide the contraceptives to insulate the nuns from dealing them. Yet it is my understanding that they still see that as too enabling and therefore will keep appealing.

I don't see anything that would put the nuns in the position of in any way stopping or prohibiting their employees from obtaining contraceptives, but simply that they would not have direct involvement in it. I see a big difference in not being involved in someone else's activity and interfering with their freedom to do it.

The way I see it, they have no choice. As employers, they have the corresponding duties, including fulfilling legal provisions for medical needs.

If the law allows for third parties to do that on their stead, then so be it. But I object to extending differentiated treatment for them on religious grounds alone; the privileges should be the same as those of any other employer (or non-profit employer, in this case).

 

[fantome profane]

I did not think of it as particularly extreme, either. But ultimately it is what it is, and we should not rely on outside circunstances to protect the employees from their objections to following the law.

The newspiece says that accomodations have been proposed for a third party to provide the contraceptives to insulate the nuns from dealing them. Yet it is my understanding that they still see that as too enabling and therefore will keep appealing.




The way I see it, they have no choice. As employers, they have the corresponding duties, including fulfilling legal provisions for medical needs.

If the law allows for third parties to do that on their stead, then so be it. But I object to extending differentiated treatment for them on religious grounds alone; the privileges should be the same as those of any other employer (or non-profit employer, in this case).

I agree completely. I have some sympathy for the nuns position, and I really don't want to sound mean about this. But ultimately their beliefs, regardless of how deeply felt should not be binding on their employees.

If this program had been set up properly in the first place as a single payer system this would not be an issue. But that is not what happened.

One way they could get around this is to use outside contractors instead of direct employees. That way it would be paid for either by the contractors, or an employment service. The nuns would still be paying for it, but indirectly. A technicality perhaps. But I think whatever they end up doing in the end will be a technicality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should the nuns have thier exemption in light of thier religious views or should they comply as the majority of people must comply as long as there is an existing law?

Mandatory health insurance (where the government forces an employer to provide health care coverage that could be used to purchase contraception or other "sinful" medical things) is no more an infringement on religious freedom than a mandatory minimum wage (where the government forces an employer to provide actual money that can be used to buy any and every "sinful" product or service available for sale) is.

That being said, I think that health care coverage shouldn't involve employers at all. The government should simply provide insurance directly.

 

[Ingledsva]

Then it comes down to whether the nuns have the right to demand the privilege of not respecting the freedoms of others.

Which, of course, must be answered with a definite "no".

I don't see it as quite that extreme.

I don't see anything that would put the nuns in the position of in any way stopping or prohibiting their employees from obtaining contraceptives, but simply that they would not have direct involvement in it. I see a big difference in not being involved in someone else's activity and interfering with their freedom to do it.

I agree with Luis.


Also - Hospitals and their workers should not be able to withhold standard care, because of their personal religious objections. If they think this is going to be a problem then they should not go into the care business.


A real-world case in point --- I live in Southeast Alaska, which is all small villages and towns. The only two big Alaska cities are Anchorage and Fairbanks. These two are more then a thousand miles from me.

All the small towns basically have first-aid-stations. So, all medical conditions, including pregnancy delivery, from these small towns, are sent to a centrally located "slightly" bigger city which has two hospitals.

One of them is run by a Church, with the nurses being nuns. (Possible abortion to save the mother's life problems, right to die/no resuscitation/no heroic life efforts, problems, etc.) They also run one of the old folk's homes (possible right to die/no resuscitation/no heroic life efforts, problems, etc.)


If the "regular" hospital is overrun by cases, the overage has to go to the religious one - which as shown - may curtail the patients human rights and choices. This is a big problem.


I think something that would help, in ALL areas with these religious run hospitals, would be to inform AMBULANCES, that if they deliver patients to these (non-human-rights-compliant, non-basic-accepted-care hospitals) THEY, as well as the hospital, can be sued by the delivered patients, or their families.



*