How far do the religious right intend to go?

[zapatos]

Actually, insurance companies do refuse to pay for the pill even when women need it for medical reasons. In her speech, Sandra Fluke gives a heartbreaking example of this at her university.

Wow. I am truly shocked.

 

Listen, I have no problem with guys using Viagra to treat ED. However, I do think it's fair to point out the hypocrisy of the religious right on this issue. The only purpose I can see for Viagra is that it allows men with ED to get an erection. Am I wrong? And unless I'm missing something, the only reason to get an erection is, well, to have sex! (Or masturbate. Whatever floats your goat. Edit: I meant boat. lol.) The reason I think it's pertinent to compare the religious right's non-discussion of Viagra with their tizzy over the pill is because it blatantly shows the double-standard they have concerning women and men. If there were no double standard, then the religious right would also think it's appropriate to limit Viagra to only those who need it for procreation.

Yes, the only point of Viagra is to get an erection.

 

Yes, the only reason to get an erectioin is to have sex.

 

No, the religious right would not also think it's appropriate to limit Viagra to only those who need it for procreation.

The church is not opposed to sex (in marriage). The church is not opposed to sex when there is no desire to get pregnant. The church is not opposed to couples actively trying to avoid pregnancy. The church believes that sex in marriage is good whether the couple wants to get pregnant or not. The church, and thus the religious right, are opposed to artificial forms of birth control such as the pill and condoms. They are not opposed to the rhythm method.

This is why, IMHO, there is no double standard.

They oppose the pill for women, and they oppose condoms for men. They have no intention of paying for either. It is obviously more of an issue to women than to men, because women bear the brunt of pregnancies.

The issue is contraception. The issue is not sex.

 

I agree, but that wasn't my point at all. See above.

I accept that wasn't your point at all. However, when I read the following, I took that to mean since viagra wasn't only being used to help men procreate, then if they can fire women...they should also fire men. My mistake.

To assume that Viagra is only being used to help men procreate is likely more erroneous than assuming that contraceptives are mostly used to relieve acne and menstrual cramps. Yet, no one puts up a fuss. Because ultimately, no one cares if a guy has sex for fun. Women, on the other hand .....

 

If Arizona puts a bill through that allows employers to fire women for using contraceptives to have non-procreative sex, then they should also put a bill through that will allow employers to fire men for using Viagra to have non-procreative sex.

 

Question (again showing my ignorance of the male anatomy). Is ED painful? Does it kill men? Or does it just stop them from getting an erection? The reason I think the pill and Viagra are related is because a lack of both seem to just reduce sexual choices. Testicular cancer, on the other hand, sounds incredibly painful and is probably fatal if not treated.

No, ED is not physically painful. No, it does not kill men. It just stops them from getting an erection, or a full erection, or an erection all the time.

 

I agree that the pill and Viagra reduce sexual choices. I agree there is an argument to be made. But I also believe that they are different in important and fundamental ways, and that if you want to win the argument to allow contraception, you will have a hard time doing it (no pun intended) by arguing "it's not fair, because you already allow Viagra".

 

I agree that the pill can also be compared to preventative medicine. I know there are studies out there that suggest insurance policies that cover the pill have overall lower costs. My personal opinion -- I just don't think that the religious right cares if it's preventative medicine.

Agree completely. But I don't think winning over the religious right will do it for you anyway. The left is already on board, probably most of the middle too. It is the Christian ladies (and to a lesser extent men) who are concerned about women's health and women's issues that you can win over with the preventive medicine argument.

 

OK. I do hope that you recognize #2 was not a policy suggestion, but rather a statement meant to show the hypocrisy of the religious right's position?

Yes.

 

The reason I directed a rant at you is because you wrote,

Yes, and I could have been more subtle, and I should also have considered where your mindset is overall. I just reacted that way because I supported all the points you, Moon, and iNow made, but only suggested there was a better argument to be made elsewhere. It seemed to me that by making the lack of equality issues to me that you were putting me in the crosshairs for a part of the overall issue that I hadn't even addressed, much less argued against.

 

In subsequent posts, you did state that you do recognize that the double standard exists and that you do hope for a day of more equality, which I appreciate.

 

However, at this point in the conversation, my heuristic mind linked these comments you made to past statements made by other people that were used to silence my concerns about equality of the sexes. As I'm sure you know, many people in developed countries such as Canada or the US believe that feminism is not needed anymore, that there's not a double standard, and that feminists are just whiners with no real reason to complain. Don't get me wrong -- I know that I have it good compared to even my mother's generation, but I also recognize that women's liberation is a very young concept and susceptible to backsliding if those of us who believe in equality aren't vigilant. And right now, there's a lot of backsliding going on, especially as the religious right gains political power.

 

Can you understand why I'd be sensitive to the implied sentiment that I shouldn't have an ax to grind because women are held to a different standard? Is that what you meant to say? Because that's kinda how it was worded.

Sure I can understand, and I in no way meant to say you shouldn't have an axe to grind.

It just seemed to me that you got it out and aimed it in my direction (maybe because of past a-holes), when we were still working on the "which comparison to contraception is better" argument.

[CaptainPanic]

As always, I totally fail to see why this discussion is being held? Don't you Americans have the Freedom of Religion?

 

From the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (source: wikipedia)

 

Isn't the freedom of having birth control a part of the religion called "atheism"? I mean, it's not like the left wing is forcing birth control onto the religious right... why take it away from the left?

 

What the religious right is essentially saying is that there shouldn't be any religious freedom. Instead, everybody should live like the Christians. (So, essentially, it's religious law... the American version of the Sharia).

[zapatos]

As always, I totally fail to see why this discussion is being held? Don't you Americans have the Freedom of Religion?

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (source: wikipedia)

 

Isn't the freedom of having birth control a part of the religion called "atheism"? I mean, it's not like the left wing is forcing birth control onto the religious right... why take it away from the left?

 

What the religious right is essentially saying is that there shouldn't be any religious freedom. Instead, everybody should live like the Christians. (So, essentially, it's religious law... the American version of the Sharia).

There is the issue. Religious based institutions feel that being forced to provide contraception prohibits their free exercise of religion.

 

They are not saying everyone should live like Christians (well, maybe they are, but not in this instance). They are not objecting to non-religious based institutions providing contraception.

[CaptainPanic]

There is the issue. Religious based institutions feel that being forced to provide contraception prohibits their free exercise of religion.

 

They are not saying everyone should live like Christians (well, maybe they are, but not in this instance). They are not objecting to non-religious based institutions providing contraception.

Oh, crap, now I see the problem you're in. Thanks for the clear explanation.

 

Well, those religious organisations got you all by the b*lls, then, don't they?

It's a fantastic fallacy that they present: the need to have a religious law, to uphold the religious freedom.

[Phi for All]

Wow. I am truly shocked.

More unworthiness. I don't know why this issue forces you to such depths.

 

 

 

 

On a brighter note, even John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona, sees that this bill is completely wrong:

 

http://www.youtube.c...bed/vsoXd7JNZdk

[zapatos]

More unworthiness. I don't know why this issue forces you to such depths.

http://www.youtube.c...bed/vsoXd7JNZdk

Huh?

 

How can an insurance company justify not paying for a medically necessary treatment just because the drug has other uses?

 

For some reason I get the feeling that I am being viewed as a jackass on this issue. I try real hard to be precise in what I am saying because people only have my words to work with. No one gets to see any body language or hear my tone of voice. So my intent is to have the words, and the words only, convey what I mean.

 

When I say that I believe comparing contraception to preventive medicine is a better argument than comparing contraception to Viagra, what I mean is that I believe comparing contraception to preventive medicine is a better argument than comparing contraception to Viagra. I don't mean that women aren't held to a different standard, or that women's equality issues should be dismissed.

 

When I say "Wow. I am truly shocked.", what I mean is "Wow. I am truly shocked." I don't mean "Who gives a shit." or whatever you think it is I meant that indicates I'm being such a dick.

 

I would be better understood if people took what I said at face value. Or if I was asked to clarify if it was suspected I meant something else. I think I've shown that I'm happy to clarify and expand on my position.

 

So, no sarcasm, nothing between the lines, this is what I think.

 

Women are not treated as equals to men. I think this is wrong and I hope they are treated as equals in the future, the sooner the better.

While there are issues that make comparing contraception to Viagra reasonable, I believe the issues comparing contraception to preventive medicine make for a better argument in favor of health plans paying for contraception.

I believe that religious based institutions such as Catholic hospitals, although not churches, should be required to offer contraception to their employees as part of the health insurance they offer.

I am not a Catholic.

I believe the Church is wrong on its stand against contraception.

My wife and I have used contraception, including prior to marriage.

I told my two sons (before they were sexually active) that if they did not use condoms every time they had sex then they were not responsible enough to have sex. Neither are married.

 

I keep trying to explain my position in this thread and I think that the perception people have of me is going to color everything I say. Therefore I'm just going to move on to other topics.

 

Sorry for the offense I caused people as that was not my intention. I'll try to work on my communication skills.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

I didn't expect intellectual dishonesty from you, Justin.

I was relaying my amusement. I don't see how you can compare abortion and birth control to sex enhancement drugs in this case. The only reason it seems that this law is targeting women is the simple fact that the conditions that the religions are against can only aplly to women. If it were possible for men to end their pregnancies, (men being pregnant was the "wierd" comment that I was intellectually dishonest about), then I would assume this law would apply to them as well.

 

Singling out women for doctor-prescribed birth control or abortion requirements when they aren't targeting men who get doctor-prescribed penile enhancement drugs. What if it was the woman's husband or boyfriend who wanted his lady to get the abortion? This bill doesn't require HIM to watch one being done.

The bill doesn't require her to agree with her husband/boyfriend either. It is ultimately only her choice (which I don't fully agree with either), therefore she is the only one responsible for the consequences and what comes with making those decisions.

 

 

Absolutely not. Your medical insurance is part of your compensation package, not some gallantry on the part of the employer. If your employer were trying to deny this on his own, he'd get thrown in jail. This bill is just trying to make it legal for your employer to ignore the complaints they'd be bound to get.

Most employers I have ever had dealings with have been anything but gallant, so you may have a point there. But this sort of thing has been happening for a while. My mother-in-law works for a catholic hospital. They have never allowed her to get birth control through her insurance plan. And again my point was, they pay for it, why make them pay for something that they fundamentally disagree on on more than a few levels? It's not like they can tell my mother-in-law that she can't use contraceptives, it's just that they won't pay for it. But to buy those contraceptives would be against their religion. Why do you feel it's alright to persecute religion by mandating that they pay for something that they are wholly against? Let women pay for it if there employer won't. Then their medical records won't be an issue.

 

Zapatos,

 

I cannot believe how much some people like the government to be involved in their lives. Especially something as personal as whether or not to have an abortion. I guess we just have to assume people are stupid and can't function without the government helping them every step of the way.

Good point, when put in that perspective, I can agree with that.

 

But how can you let them into one aspect of your life without letting them into all aspects? I always find it amusing when people say " the government needs to do this for the good of the people". Then once they give it to them then turn right around and shout "We need our freedom". That makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

 

 

Phi,

Well, that's the hypocrisy of the religious right Republican.

The last statement I said to zapatos,(last statement above) was refering to hypocracy, but it applies to the left democrat more than the right republican, although both are guilty to a point.

 

 

 

I agree with the law as far as religious freedom goes. The fact that employers have to provide insurance to their employees that includes contraception is wrong. I believe that employer should have a right to opt out if they feel that it goes against their religious beliefs. By mandating that they do provide insurance that includes contraceptives is where freedom of religion is denied.

As for women getting fired for it...doubtful. I'm sure there are a few wack jobs out there who might want to take advantage(if they could). But overall I think the majority of employers aren't just looking for reasons to fire their employees. It's not like they hire people just to see how fast they can fire them. They hire them to do a job, and if that person does a good job and proves to be well versed in their duties, an employer would have to be out of their mind to fire on such grounds. Not to mention in this day and age, who gets shocked when a woman tells you she's on the pill? How I see it, in these days it is automatically assumed that a woman is on the pill until she has said otherwise. So, more than likely their employer hired them on that kind of assumption, if they even thought about it in the first place. Which I doubt.

 

I can see people now, sitting in an interview. Right in the middle of it the boss man looks up and asked "Do you use contraceptives?". Doubtful. It's weird how most people argue their point with a statement like that. All it is is a major accusation that the majority of people bad and will mistreat you at the first opportunity. And it is usually wildly out of the realm of what actually happens and who people are. Is it so hard to believe that people are basically good, and that wild assumption and what if's are usually inaccurate as hell.

[Phi for All]

For some reason I get the feeling that I am being viewed as a jackass on this issue. I try real hard to be precise in what I am saying because people only have my words to work with. No one gets to see any body language or hear my tone of voice. So my intent is to have the words, and the words only, convey what I mean.

You really set a horrible tone with that "axe to grind" line earlier. The bad taste still hasn't left my mouth. But I'll admit it was wrong of me to let it color my interpretation of your "shocked" comment. It seemed to me that you were commenting on Sandra Fluke testimony in an unnecessarily sarcastic manner. I apologize if I mistook your intentions.

 

I was relaying my amusement. I don't see how you can compare abortion and birth control to sex enhancement drugs in this case. The only reason it seems that this law is targeting women is the simple fact that the conditions that the religions are against can only aplly to women. If it were possible for men to end their pregnancies, (men being pregnant was the "wierd" comment that I was intellectually dishonest about), then I would assume this law would apply to them as well.

Rush Limbaugh effectively turned the whole argument into one of paying for women to have sex, and since so many of his dittoheads concurred, that's the tack I decided to argue against. In this instance, the heart of the matter is not what the drug is supposed to do, it's what it's actually being used for. In both cases, the drug allows people to have more sex.

 

Most employers I have ever had dealings with have been anything but gallant, so you may have a point there. But this sort of thing has been happening for a while.

And every time we allow it to happen, we're giving up more of our freedom. Have you stopped to consider what allowing an employer to make decisions about your compensation based on the employers religious beliefs could lead to? We have laws against discrimination, and this new bill seems to allow a select group of people to float above those laws.

 

What's next? "You're fired because I found out you didn't have your kids baptized. If you want your job back, have it done by next Sunday."

 

I agree with the law as far as religious freedom goes. The fact that employers have to provide insurance to their employees that includes contraception is wrong. I believe that employer should have a right to opt out if they feel that it goes against their religious beliefs. By mandating that they do provide insurance that includes contraceptives is where freedom of religion is denied.

Don't you see where this could lead? You can't allow people's right to practice their own religion extend to other people, you just can't. Your reasoning would allow employers to conduct mandatory religious services during working hours because their belief requires them to spread the gospel. It would allow them to fire someone for wearing a Star of David or carrying a rosary.

 

Again, health insurance is done at the employer level because it's much more efficient to take the money out before the employee puts it in their bank account. The system ensures that medical issues are covered as much as they can be. This is NOT something an employer should be allowed to interfere with. It's not theirs to play around with, it belongs to YOU, not them. It starts with birth control but could extend to many crucial areas. Should an employer who is a Christian Scientist be allowed to deny your insurance because it's paying for your child's desperately needed operation?

 

As for women getting fired for it...doubtful. I'm sure there are a few wack jobs out there who might want to take advantage(if they could). But overall I think the majority of employers aren't just looking for reasons to fire their employees. It's not like they hire people just to see how fast they can fire them. They hire them to do a job, and if that person does a good job and proves to be well versed in their duties, an employer would have to be out of their mind to fire on such grounds. Not to mention in this day and age, who gets shocked when a woman tells you she's on the pill? How I see it, in these days it is automatically assumed that a woman is on the pill until she has said otherwise. So, more than likely their employer hired them on that kind of assumption, if they even thought about it in the first place. Which I doubt.

If it happens even once, part of our humanity and our being American will die. Why does the bill give them the legal right to do it if they aren't going to do it?

 

I can see people now, sitting in an interview. Right in the middle of it the boss man looks up and asked "Do you use contraceptives?". Doubtful. It's weird how most people argue their point with a statement like that. All it is is a major accusation that the majority of people bad and will mistreat you at the first opportunity. And it is usually wildly out of the realm of what actually happens and who people are. Is it so hard to believe that people are basically good, and that wild assumption and what if's are usually inaccurate as hell.

In your own words, "I'm sure there are a few wack jobs out there who might want to take advantage". What happens if a wack job like Santorum becomes president? Won't that make wack pretty popular?

[zapatos]

You really set a horrible tone with that "axe to grind" line earlier. The bad taste still hasn't left my mouth.

Ok, I left one out.

 

When I say "you sound like you have an axe to grind" what I mean is it sounds like you...

 

Have a dispute to take up with someone or, to have an ulterior motive/ to have private ends to serve.

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/174000.html

 

As in, if we are talking about one issue, such as what to compare contraception to, and you make a statement about how women are held to a different standard and make a sarcastic comment about firing men for using Viagra, it sounds to me like you have a dispute to take up with someone...

 

And considering I didn't make the comment to you, and consisdering I apologized for coming across as offensive, and considering I said I'd work to improve my communication skills, you might understand how I'm not too concerned that you still have a bad taste in your mouth. Try being more forgiving and a little less judgemental. Maybe then it won't taste so bad.

[Phi for All]

Ok, I left one out.

 

When I say "you sound like you have an axe to grind" what I mean is it sounds like you...

 

 

 

http://www.phrases.o...ngs/174000.html

 

As in, if we are talking about one issue, such as what to compare contraception to, and you make a statement about how women are held to a different standard and make a sarcastic comment about firing men for using Viagra, it sounds to me like you have a dispute to take up with someone...

 

And considering I didn't make the comment to you, and consisdering I apologized for coming across as offensive, and considering I said I'd work to improve my communication skills, you might understand how I'm not too concerned that you still have a bad taste in your mouth. Try being more forgiving and a little less judgemental. Maybe then it won't taste so bad.

My apology still stands, even though you ignored it.

[zapatos]

My apology still stands, even though you ignored it.

Yes, I shouldn't have ignored it. My blood is up. As it came right after you told me how disgusted you still were with me, I just glossed right past it.

 

I appreciate your accepting my explanation of what I meant by my "shocked" comment.

[Moontanman]

Evidently all the way....

 

[Moontanman]

I agree with the law as far as religious freedom goes. The fact that employers have to provide insurance to their employees that includes contraception is wrong. I believe that employer should have a right to opt out if they feel that it goes against their religious beliefs. By mandating that they do provide insurance that includes contraceptives is where freedom of religion is denied.

As for women getting fired for it...doubtful. I'm sure there are a few wack jobs out there who might want to take advantage(if they could). But overall I think the majority of employers aren't just looking for reasons to fire their employees. It's not like they hire people just to see how fast they can fire them. They hire them to do a job, and if that person does a good job and proves to be well versed in their duties, an employer would have to be out of their mind to fire on such grounds. Not to mention in this day and age, who gets shocked when a woman tells you she's on the pill? How I see it, in these days it is automatically assumed that a woman is on the pill until she has said otherwise. So, more than likely their employer hired them on that kind of assumption, if they even thought about it in the first place. Which I doubt.

 

JustinW, you have really pissed me off with your attitude on this... I have hesitated to respond because of two things, first I wanted to get my act together so i didn't come off half cocked and mainly because I don't believe I have the right not to be pissed off... so i started to decided to just ignore you and go on but I can't...

 

But do you seriously think that anyone has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others? If you own a business and think that birth control is wrong then you shouldn't use it. Don't wrap that rascal, don't use an IUD, don't take the pill, stand on a street corner and tell everyone how evil and sinful birth control is. But to deny someone who does not believe the way you do birth control is wrong.

 

If you own a business why is it your right to deny contraception to others? You can't say it's due to the expense, it has to be because you desire to control what others do. The religious right has a big problem with birth control, mainly because it empowers women, listen the what the republicans are running for president and you can see this. they pretend to hide behind not wanting abortion but they oppose all birth control.

 

But lets get beyond birth control, if your religion deems antibiotics as against your religion do you get to deny coverage for antibiotics? Do you get to require prayer be tried before medicine? Or in place of medicine? If your religion thinks a blood transfusion is against their favorite fairy tales teachings then do you get to deny coverage for blood transfusions?

 

You honestly seem to be an intelligent man, do you think that just because the exceptions are due to religion it will always be a religion you agree with? If your religion says it's ok to beat your wife then do you get to refuse to pay for medical treatment resulting from an employee beating his wife?

 

I cannot believe you would go for that, freedom of religion protects everyone from religious tyranny, ignore that not your own peril but at the peril of our entire country...

 

I can see people now, sitting in an interview. Right in the middle of it the boss man looks up and asked "Do you use contraceptives?". Doubtful. It's weird how most people argue their point with a statement like that. All it is is a major accusation that the majority of people bad and will mistreat you at the first opportunity. And it is usually wildly out of the realm of what actually happens and who people are. Is it so hard to believe that people are basically good, and that wild assumption and what if's are usually inaccurate as hell.

 

Again, it;s difficult for me to believe you are naive enough to believe that this, yes, people will treat you badly at the first opportunity.. if they think god demands it! Who gets to decide what god demands? I am not going to waste the time of either of us to retype all the links to really horrible transgressions against the rights of individuals that are currently being voted on and in some cases passing right now in state legislatures. Transvaginal utrasound? Good god man, think about it, can you imagine how bad it will be once the religious actually gain control?

 

Do you really want to bet that when the religious gain the control they seek it will be your personal religion that will be in control? Do you really think everyone who calls themselves Christians are really on the same side? Not many years ago Christians were killing Christians, go back a couple centuries and it gets much worse, do you think only witches were burned at the stake? It's why our founding fathers supported the separation of church and state.

 

It's really difficult to believe an intelligent man like your self cannot see this, religion with out controls is dangerous, it kills people who disagree, to say it can't get like that and still be in power is really ignoring history and human nature... As long as men are in control we need to be protected from religion, no way around it...

 

Do you know that Catholic Nuns have been required to take birth control pills by the Church?

 

http://www.propinoy.net/2010/11/24/thy-condom-come-thy-pill-be-done/

 

So the Church remains steadfast and absolute against artificial contraception? Not always.

 

During the civil wars in the Congo, the Vatican allowed nuns to take birth-control pills as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape. The Vatican, I suppose, placed its position on artificial contraception on hold to avert what some may have viewed as a greater evil: nuns breastfeeding unwanted babies.

[jeskill]

I'd just like to publicly commend Zapatos for being a good debate/discussion partner. Things got heated (on both sides), but ultimately, things got sorted out and reason prevailed. So refreshing after having many fruitless discussions with ahem, someone else!

 

There is the issue. Religious based institutions feel that being forced to provide contraception prohibits their free exercise of religion.

 

They are not saying everyone should live like Christians (well, maybe they are, but not in this instance). They are not objecting to non-religious based institutions providing contraception.

 

AFAIK, the bill in question did not force religious institutions to provide contraception. Rather, if these institutions (e.g. Catholic hospitals, schools, etc) felt they could not in good conscience provide contraceptives, this bill allowed people who worked for these institutions to be directly insured for contraceptives by the insurer so that the institution does not participate in the process. Which, yes, is a loophole, but hey, loopholes are used all the time to circumvent religious rules (e.g. getting a non-jew to light the oven on Shabbat, Sharia-compliant loans allowing Muslims to pay a "fee" instead of interest, etc. etc.)

 

Just as a hypothetical, imagine Judy is a Unitarian, so her religious affiliation does not prohibit the use of contraceptives. Now imagine she gets hired at a Catholic university. If the university prohibited her ability to use contraceptives, wouldn't that violate her freedom of religion by forcing her to abide by another religion's rules?

[zapatos]

AFAIK, the bill in question did not force religious institutions to provide contraception. Rather, if these institutions (e.g. Catholic hospitals, schools, etc) felt they could not in good conscience provide contraceptives, this bill allowed people who worked for these institutions to be directly insured for contraceptives by the insurer so that the institution does not participate in the process.

Yes, if I read it correctly, the compromise stated that instead of the institution paying the insurer to provide contraceptives, the insurer would instead offer contraceptives directly to the employee, free of charge, payment coming out of the pocket of the insurer instead of from the religious organization.

 

Some religious institutions feel this is simply a sleight of hand, arguing that the insurance company still has to pay for the contraceptives. Since the insurance company is getting their money from the religious institution in the first place, the religious institution is leary of the claim that they are not paying for it.

 

It appears though that this compromise may please enough people to bring an end to the issue.

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/womens-groups-give-new-contraception-rule-stamp-of-approval.php

[Sergeant Bilko]

Apologies if this has already been posted, seems kinda appropriate. Policy advice from the north of England.

 

[zapatos]

Apologies if this has already been posted, seems kinda appropriate. Policy advice from the north of England.

 

HAR!!

 

It's hard to take anything seriously once the MP boys explain it to you!

[JustinW]

Moontanman,

 

JustinW, you have really pissed me off

It's better than being pissed on.

 

But do you seriously think that anyone has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others?

Do you think that you have the right to make someone go against their religious beliefs, when they are well established and accepted beliefs. No one begrudged the contraceptive religious belief until the religious folks stopped wanting to pay for it. It's not like it is a belief that someone came up with last tuesday.

 

 

But to deny someone who does not believe the way you do birth control is wrong.

To make someone pay out of their pocket to specifically go against their beliefs is just as wrong.

If you own a business why is it your right to deny contraception to others?

 

Because if you own the business, you're paying for it.

 

But lets get beyond birth control, if your religion deems antibiotics as against your religion do you get to deny coverage for antibiotics?

Don't see why not. It's the same principle, you're still having to pay for people to go against your religion.

 

 

Do you get to require prayer be tried before medicine? Or in place of medicine?

Absolutely not. That would essentially be the same as requiring someone to pay for birth control who thinks it's against their religion.

 

 

You honestly seem to be an intelligent man, do you think that just because the exceptions are due to religion it will always be a religion you agree with? If your religion says it's ok to beat your wife then do you get to refuse to pay for medical treatment resulting from an employee beating his wife?

Why do people like to result to using BS analogies to try and prove their points. You know I would say no to that. Wife beating isn't any part of religious law here in the US, but birth control is a well established and widely accepted part of what some religions do not accept. It's not like I'm saying anyone can make up anything at anytime, and I think you're smart enough to understand the point I'm making here. Like I said when I started posting in this thread, I thought the conversation was a little one sided and figured I would argue from the opposing perspective. I really don't give a damn either way.

 

I cannot believe you would go for that, freedom of religion protects everyone from religious tyranny

Huh? Freedom of religion protects against persecution from government against religion. That's why you have the FREEDOM to chose your own religion. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you're fee OF religion

 

 

Again, it;s difficult for me to believe you are naive enough to believe that this, yes, people will treat you badly at the first opportunity

Man, I'm surprised you don't live in a bunker. It's good to look out for bad people but to say that the majority of people in this world are bad is rediculous. Does your assessment include yourself?

 

 

Good god man, think about it, can you imagine how bad it will be once the religious actually gain control?

They've had control for mellenia. What's new?

 

As long as men are in control we need to be protected from religion, no way around it...

As long as men are in control we need to be protected from men. Religion is just an excuse that men will use. Was Hitler religiouslly motivated? The answer is no. A secular nut is still a nut no matter how you look at it.

 

Do you know that Catholic Nuns have been required to take birth control pills by the Church?

So?

 

 

 

Jeskill,

Just as a hypothetical, imagine Judy is a Unitarian, so her religious affiliation does not prohibit the use of contraceptives. Now imagine she gets hired at a Catholic university. If the university prohibited her ability to use contraceptives, wouldn't that violate her freedom of religion by forcing her to abide by another religion's rules?

 

Not in the least. They're not telling her that she can't use contraceptives. They're just telling her that they aren't going to pay for them.

[Phi for All]

To make someone pay out of their pocket to specifically go against their beliefs is just as wrong.

 

 

Because if you own the business, you're paying for it.

 

Don't see why not. It's the same principle, you're still having to pay for people to go against your religion.

 

 

Absolutely not. That would essentially be the same as requiring someone to pay for birth control who thinks it's against their religion.

Justin, I really feel you're unaware of exactly what employer-based health insurance is. You keep claiming that these medicines are being payed for by our employers. Medical insurance is NOT paid for by your employer, as much as they want you to think that due to the control it gives them. Employers are allowed to treat it as a cost of doing business, so it's tax-deductible, but it's NOT considered a taxable compensation, so they get a double deduction. They come out completely ahead and THAT'S why they do it. Make no mistake, it's part of your compensation, the money is YOURS, it's not theirs, and it's compulsory that it go towards medical coverage.

 

Here's a good article that questions whether it's really even a good system anymore: http://economix.blog...e-worth-saving/

[zapatos]

Do you think that you have the right to make someone go against their religious beliefs, when they are well established and accepted beliefs. No one begrudged the contraceptive religious belief until the religious folks stopped wanting to pay for it. It's not like it is a belief that someone came up with last tuesday.

In my opinion it is reasonable and supported by the Constitution that houses of worship not be required to supply contraception to their employees via health plans. People seeking employment at such institutions were well aware of what type of organization they were applying to.

 

I also believe it is reasonable and supported by the Constitution that religious based institutions such as Catholic hospitals be required to supply contraception to their employees via health plans. Religious based organizations seeking to create public businesses were well aware they would be required to follow laws regarding wages and work hours; safety and health standards; health benefits, retirement standards and workers compensation; and other workplace standards. These laws are in place to protect workers and neither religious organization nor any other group should be allowed to impose those own standards to the detriment of those standards set by law. This country is based on the rights of the individuals, not the rights of religious institutions.

 

If people do not want to be required to abide by a religion then they should not join that religion or work at that church. If religious institutions do not wish abide by laws governing public institutions then they should not create public institutions.

 

If I am a Muslim and do not believe women should be allowed to drive cars, it is not reasonable of me start a cab company and expect that I can refuse to hire women simply because of my religion. It is not acceptable. My religious beliefs do not and should not overide laws regarding child labor, minimum wage, safety, etc.

Edited March 20, 2012 by zapatos

[Sergeant Bilko]

The world according to Justin appears to be a very sinister place, where money rules everything, and those with the money call the shots, those without serve according the wishes and morals of the paymasters.

 

Justin, the healthcare package is part of the compensation package, not some moral code by which an employer decides what healthcare is moral and what is not. I suppose the next step in your world is that the employer decides how you spend your salary, and if it is not in accordance with todays moral position, wages will be withheld?

 

This really is a step on a very slippery slope.

[swansont]

There is the issue. Religious based institutions feel that being forced to provide contraception prohibits their free exercise of religion.

 

They are not saying everyone should live like Christians (well, maybe they are, but not in this instance). They are not objecting to non-religious based institutions providing contraception.

 

It's actually going further than that, because there are states who also want any employer to be able to opt out of providing contraception based on moral objections.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

Make no mistake, it's part of your compensation

What are you talking about? Employer provided insurance is a benifit that they have the option of providing. It doesn't matter what kind of tax breaks or whatever else they recieve for doing it. It's not like they are compensating you for anything. If they choose not to provide that benifit it's not like they would have to compensate you in a different way to make up for it. You are treating it as though they have no choice in the matter of providing health insurance.

These religious employers still want to provide their employees health insurance, but they would like to do so without contraception. If they do not get this law passed they will ultimately drop their employees insurance. Which will probably be what happens in mass in 2014.

[Sergeant Bilko]

Phi,

 

What are you talking about? Employer provided insurance is a benifit that they have the option of providing. It doesn't matter what kind of tax breaks or whatever else they recieve for doing it. It's not like they are compensating you for anything. If they choose not to provide that benifit it's not like they would have to compensate you in a different way to make up for it. You are treating it as though they have no choice in the matter of providing health insurance.

These religious employers still want to provide their employees health insurance, but they would like to do so without contraception. If they do not get this law passed they will ultimately drop their employees insurance. Which will probably be what happens in mass in 2014.

 

I do hope that these religious employers you are an apologist for draw the line at contraception. A natural extension of your argument would allow them choose whatever else they can exclude from the policy? Will Jehovas witness employers will be able to ban blood transfusions and organ transplants? This kind of specious moral argument undermines the principles of medicine and adds an Orwellian slant to the discussion.

 

 

 

Just for you Justin

 

 

"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

It's better than being pissed on.

 

I agree but not every one does...

 

Do you think that you have the right to make someone go against their religious beliefs, when they are well established and accepted beliefs. No one begrudged the contraceptive religious belief until the religious folks stopped wanting to pay for it. It's not like it is a belief that someone came up with last tuesday.

 

Do you think someone has the right to make you conform to their religious beliefs just because you work for them?

 

 

 

To make someone pay out of their pocket to specifically go against their beliefs is just as wrong.

 

Who is doing that?

 

 

Because if you own the business, you're paying for it.

 

No you are not, in fact you will pay more or rather your employees will pay more if you exclude birth control.

 

Don't see why not. It's the same principle, you're still having to pay for people to go against your religion.

 

So you have no clue as to how insurance works and you have no problem with other forcing you to follow their religious beliefs?

 

 

Absolutely not. That would essentially be the same as requiring someone to pay for birth control who thinks it's against their religion.

 

It's exactly the same thing.

 

 

Why do people like to result to using BS analogies to try and prove their points. You know I would say no to that. Wife beating isn't any part of religious law here in the US,

 

It could be, if you were one of the Muslim or Christian sects that believe such things..

 

but birth control is a well established and widely accepted part of what some religions do not accept.

 

Well established and widely accepted... So all we have to do is be well established and widely accepted? I can't believe you can't see what you are saying... doesn't tyranny of the majority mean anything to you?

 

It's not like I'm saying anyone can make up anything at anytime,

 

LMAO, Scientology comes to mind....Mormons, how far back to i need to go?

 

and I think you're smart enough to understand the point I'm making here.

 

Evidently not...

 

Like I said when I started posting in this thread, I thought the conversation was a little one sided and figured I would argue from the opposing perspective. I really don't give a damn either way.

 

You should not comment if you do not have a dog in the hunt but I am sure you do...

 

Huh? Freedom of religion protects against persecution from government against religion. That's why you have the FREEDOM to chose your own religion. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you're fee OF religion

 

You can't have freedom of religion with out freedom from religion...

 

 

Man, I'm surprised you don't live in a bunker. It's good to look out for bad people but to say that the majority of people in this world are bad is rediculous. Does your assessment include yourself?

 

God doesn't demand I treat my fellow man badly.... but he does demand that of the religious, this so called controversy is evidence of this...

 

 

They've had control for mellenia. What's new?

 

The government of the US, the enlightenment, not being drawn and quartered because you don't believe the correct way possibly?

 

As long as men are in control we need to be protected from men. Religion is just an excuse that men will use. Was Hitler religiouslly motivated? The answer is no. A secular nut is still a nut no matter how you look at it.

 

Hitler was a Roman Catholic creationist, he was religiously motivated to protect the Aryan race from the Jews...

 

So?

 

Just another example of the hypocritical nature of religion...

Edited March 20, 2012 by Moontanman