Support Choice?

[Big Don]

What it really comes down to is this simple: Christian charities do a ton of good in the world in return for a shitload of derision and snarky commentary. You don't want my help, when I offer freely, I'll say "F*** You, suffer" you want my help, but, decide to ridicule me, or ***** and whine about the manner in which I help you, same answer,"F*** you, suffer". You should be damned glad Catholic (and other Christian) charities are nicer than me.

 

[granfire]

No, I'm not kidding you. Your dislike of the Catholic Church is clear; and I won't say you're not right about much of it. The Church as much to answer for.

But that's not the issue. This isn't about punishing the Church for all the wrong it's done, even if you think that's appropriate.

It's about the right of a religion to provide their employees with health insurance coverage that conforms to their own morals and principles. It's about MY right to give my charitable donations to my own religious institutions in accordance with my own beliefs; you flat out state I'm not allowed to follow my own beliefs because you don't like the Catholic Church.

That's horrible. You should be ashamed.

Ashamed? Exactly why?

Because I don't do religion in an organized form and tend to be rather disillusioned about what is going on behind the scenes?

You can do as you lease with your money.

however, once you become an employer with many people who work for you, you are no longer a private person and rules apply. Many of which you might not like, don't agree with or find outright stupid.


Health insurance is not a charitable event. It ought to be universal and all inclusive. As I said before, BC was never really an item on the insurance plan, except after some hoop jumping. Viagra on the other hand is dished out like candy and paid for.
Prenatal care and birth sets an insurance company back tot he tune of around 10.000 dollars. Then they have to pay for the baby, too. You can dish out a lot of pills and condoms for that!
Also, the Pill is also used to treat a number of ailments in the female health sector.


The church has deep coffers. Yet they like to cry poor when convenient.
It's a popular theme with the church to pull funding when they don't get their way, with a big huff to boot.

The stance on Birth control is archaic, to put it mildly especially when you consider that a lot of the church members are living in some of the poorest countries.
Having children puts women many times on the brink of poverty. Even in the rich US. And more often than not dooming their offspring to repeat the cycle.

There is no punishing the church (they don't even get that for the things they did do wrong), just holding them to the standard a high profile employer needs to rise to.
Health care is health care. One should not be able to pick and chose what they are willing to provide.

You do not have to take birth control if you do not wish to do so. Nobody is infringing on your rights.
But you have no right to tell your wife she can't take any.


But in the end it probably just boils down to a pi$$ing contest on a political level. You know, all the good caring people who don't want everybody in the US to have what most industrialized nations in the world have: affordable healthcare for everybody.

 

[granfire]

Better add the susan g komen to your list of places you want to shutdown they are cutting grants to your beloved planned parenthood

Me?

Not giving to the pink plague anyhow...but for other reasons.

 

[seasoned]

Freedom of choice is left to each individual to search their heart for the right answer, in their life. This is where "choose ye this day" has profound implications.

 

[ballen0351]

Me?

Not giving to the pink plague anyhow...but for other reasons.

No not you that was to the guy that wanted all catholic hospitals replaced with planned parenthood

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ashamed? Exactly why?

Because you put your dislike of the Catholic Church in place of logic in your argument. It's not about religious freedom for you, it's about your dislike of Catholics.

Let's prove it.

Take an imaginary religion, call it the Lumpovians. They are a large religious organization with many believers, and part of their religious mission is to provide social and medical services to their local communities. They believe that their Savior, Jubbawak, said "Feed my children," and "Heal the sick," and they take this seriously. So they open foster care homes and they do placement of orphans in adoptive homes, they build hospitals and hire doctors and nurses and provide health care. This is done for nearly a hundred years in some communities, to the extent that the states have welcomed the additional assistance, and they find it cost-effective to partner with the Lumpovians and other groups like them to provide low-cost assistance; they even contribute money to help them, because it's an effective use of taxpayer dollars compared to what it cost to do it all via the state. These symbiotic relationships go on for a very long time, and in general, no one has a problem with them. The Lumpovians don't insist on preaching or converting the non-Lumpovians they help, and the state doesn't tell the Lumpovians how to provide services or what form of insurance they have to offer their civilian employees.

As it turns out, the Lumpovians believe that Jubbawak told them to avoid dental work. Lots of people think the Lumpovians are crazy, because dental work is essential to modern health. Even many Lumpovians themselves get dental care, against the teachings of the Church. There are various reform movements inside the Lumpovian Church by concerned lay people and religious who think that the Church should change with the times, and accept that dental health is a good thing. Outside the Church, most citizens believe in dental health and practice it without feeling guilt or shame; dental work is legal and available to all who want it. Many employers provide dental health care bundles with other forms of health insurance.

However, the Lumpovians do not agree, and they do not provide dental health care in their health insurance services to their employees. And this has always been the case. The state has not had any reason to kick about it until recently. It's an election year, and the current President, President Wassamattayou, is fighting a bitter battle for re-election. He hasn't really managed to accomplish much in his first four years in office, but he did get massive health care overhaul passed and made into law. It has a requirement that all employers provide dental health care to their employees, although in order to get it passed, he had to compromise with the other party, the Repoopinators, to get it done. One of the compromises was that he would exempt religious organizations.

Now President Wassamattayou has decided that in order to recharge his campaign and get support from Dental Rights groups, he is going to 'interpret' the religious exclusion from the law such that it only means the churches themselves, and not the institutions they might run for the benefit of others. This causes outrage from the Lumpovians and similar organizations, because they are being ordered to provide and pay for services which directly contradict what they believe as a religious tenet of faith. However, it has the benefit of taking control of the public debate for President Wassamattayou, and it gives him a boost with the Dental Rights organizations, which had seen him as soft of Dental Rights.

***********************

Now, I have removed the Catholics that you hate. It's the Lumpovians now. I have remove any reference to reproductive rights, so get that emotional bugaboo out of the argument. I have even removed the Democrat versus Republican twaddle that keeps so many people from being able to engage their brains. But the ARGUMENT is the SAME. A religious group is being ordered to provide a service to their employees which directly violates their moral beliefs, which they have never before been forced to do, and it appears to be a political battle that is about the re-election of President Wassamattayou, not about the actual issue of providing dental care to employees.

NOW. If you care to comment on the ISSUE, and not spout twaddle about the horrible Lumpovians and how their priests diddle little kids, maybe we can have a grown-up conversation. But if all you have to say is how evil the Pope of Lumpovia is, then I have to say good day to you, and yes, you should be ashamed, you hater you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Freedom of choice is left to each individual to search their heart for the right answer, in their life. This is where "choose ye this day" has profound implications.

Traditionally, the various religious organizations have supplemented the social and medical services provided by private organizations and governments as part of their religious missions. Their efforts have generally been well-appreciated in the communities where they are present, and in most ways, the state has traditionally chosen not to interfere with the manner in which the religious organizations provide those services. If there are some small areas where various religious organizations do not provide services because of heartfelt religious beliefs, the state has not insisted, and indeed there are many other places where such services can be obtained anyway. That's freedom of religion, that's freedom of choice.

When the individual gives charity to the religious organizations to which they belong or support, they know that their dollars are being spent in a way consistent with their own desires and beliefs. That's freedom of choice.

Being told that a religious organization must provide services with which they do not agree on a religious basis is not freedom of religion. It is not freedom of choice.

And being told that one's charitable contributions will be spent in ways with which one does not agree for religious reasons is likewise not freedom of choice.

And that is what I object to.

 

[Empty Hands]

But the ARGUMENT is the SAME. A religious group is being ordered to provide a service to their employees which directly violates their moral beliefs, which they have never before been forced to do...

Yes, it is the same, but there are challenges to this very argument which you have either ignored or brushed off. How far does "religious freedom" go in the violation of employer law? Was the fact that Carol's Christian Scientist employer was forced to provide healthcare of any sort at all an intolerable violation of religious freedom? Or if our Lumpovians have a sincere belief in child labor or the immoral intolerability of the 40 hour work week? I know you think there are limits here, which will probably vary from case to case, as after all some compromise will be required when religious institutions run public businesses - just as I as a private citizen may be required to make compromises with my beliefs if I run a public business. So this particular case must be justified on its own merits, not lumped in with the set argument, because I am 99% sure you believe that this argument has limits. So it must be justified - why should the Church be able to ignore labor law in this case?

On a separate note, I also find it suspicious that a tenet of freedom involves the freedom to treat other people a certain way in a way that impacts their life and livelihood. Freedom is fundamentally centered in the self. I would have to think more though on if that thought holds up.

 

[Monroe]

Yeah we have too many hospitals anyway. They don't do any good for the community. That's a great plan. The wait at the ER on a sat night can be longer no big deal. Shut them down. Planned parenthood is very useful to people in serious car accidents.

I don't live in the US. But it seems a religion is making up for government failure to provide adequate medical services. I don't believe religion has a place in medicine. The fact that a religion has to step up and take care of people that your government doesn't take care of seems to prove that privatized medicine is a complete sham.

 

[Monroe]

Better add the susan g komen to your list of places you want to shutdown they are cutting grants to your beloved planned parenthood

The reason SGK pulled their funding to PP (and they award grants to over 2,000 different organizations) is because of a newly implemented rule that does not allow them to fund anyone that is being investigated by a government body. This rule was implemented shortly after Karen Handel (staunch anti-abortionist) was brought on as the new senior VP. PP is being investigated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions. PP is the ONLY organization that this new rule now applies.

 

[Monroe]

What it really comes down to is this simple: Christian charities do a ton of good in the world in return for a shitload of derision and snarky commentary. You don't want my help, when I offer freely, I'll say "F*** You, suffer" you want my help, but, decide to ridicule me, or ***** and whine about the manner in which I help you, same answer,"F*** you, suffer". You should be damned glad Catholic (and other Christian) charities are nicer than me.

I don't use any christian charities and I'd rather they stepped away and the population and coporations taxed accordingly to provide adequate social aid without and religious agendas. I feel the same way about any religions trying to impress their religion on communities.

 

[Monroe]

No not you that was to the guy that wanted all catholic hospitals replaced with planned parenthood

I wrote "real hospitals/planned parenthoods". Your reading comprehension skills have much to be desired.

 

[ballen0351]

I wrote "real hospitals/planned parenthoods". Your reading comprehension skills have much to be desired.

Nope I read clearly what you wrote. Planned parenthoods are not hospitals. Are you suggesting you want planned parenthoods to now become full service hospital? That's not their mission.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't use any christian charities.

good so leave them alone since they don't bother you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, it is the same, but there are challenges to this very argument which you have either ignored or brushed off. How far does "religious freedom" go in the violation of employer law? Was the fact that Carol's Christian Scientist employer was forced to provide healthcare of any sort at all an intolerable violation of religious freedom?

I haven't brushed it off at all, I answered it directly. I'll answer it again. To the best of my knowledge, providing health care "of any sort" is not a violation of any religious tenets, so no. I don't know of any religious beliefs that say "we don't pay minimum wage" or "we are against health care on a religion basis." Maybe there are, so I say 'to the best of my knowledge'.

Or if our Lumpovians have a sincere belief in child labor or the immoral intolerability of the 40 hour work week? I know you think there are limits here, which will probably vary from case to case, as after all some compromise will be required when religious institutions run public businesses - just as I as a private citizen may be required to make compromises with my beliefs if I run a public business. So this particular case must be justified on its own merits, not lumped in with the set argument, because I am 99% sure you believe that this argument has limits. So it must be justified - why should the Church be able to ignore labor law in this case?

I agree that religious liberties can and have been trumped by civil law, including employment law. However, in this case, we're talking about a wall of separation that has stood the test of time and has not been an issue with the state until now; and surprise, surprise, it's during an election, and apparently brought up for the purposes of securing the vote of a particular segment of the population.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345.html

So it's not about the state suddenly deciding after all these years that you know what? The Lumpovians need to be providing Dental Care to their employees, even if it is against their religion. No, it's new, and it's about President Wassamattayou's upcoming election.

On a separate note, I also find it suspicious that a tenet of freedom involves the freedom to treat other people a certain way in a way that impacts their life and livelihood. Freedom is fundamentally centered in the self. I would have to think more though on if that thought holds up.

Fair enough.

 

[Tez3]

I don't live in the US. But it seems a religion is making up for government failure to provide adequate medical services. I don't believe religion has a place in medicine. The fact that a religion has to step up and take care of people that your government doesn't take care of seems to prove that privatized medicine is a complete sham.

I don't live in the US either, I don't pretend to understand this thread, it's outside my experience and knowledge hence I'm not commenting but just reading.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't live in the US. But it seems a religion is making up for government failure to provide adequate medical services. I don't believe religion has a place in medicine. The fact that a religion has to step up and take care of people that your government doesn't take care of seems to prove that privatized medicine is a complete sham.

The Catholic Church provides social and medical services in as many countries as will let them do so. It's part of what Catholics see as their mission. We believe Jesus said to feed His children, to clothe them, to heal the sick. The Catholic Church as many problems and it is entirely fair to bring them up and demand that they fix those issues and hold them responsible for the wrong they have done and continue to do. But the Catholic Church does believe and does perform good works as part of its mandate.

http://www.caritas-socialaction.org.uk/

The Catholic Church generally works with governments to pick up the slack and help in any way they can, within the bounds of our own faith requirements (such as the issue about not providing abortions or birth control).

 

[Monroe]

Nope I read clearly what you wrote. Planned parenthoods are not hospitals. Are you suggesting you want planned parenthoods to now become full service hospital? That's not their mission.

Obviously planned parenthoods aren't hospitals. @@ Christian groups run crisis pregnancy "clinics". I don't approve of these clinics anymore than I approve of catholic hospitals. It would be inappropriate if there were muslim hospitals or buddhist hospitals. Religion has no place in medicince, medical centers or clinics of any kind.

 

[Monroe]

I don't live in the US either, I don't pretend to understand this thread, it's outside my experience and knowledge hence I'm not commenting but just reading.

My husband and children have dual Canadian/American citizenship. I've quite a few ties to the US and Canadian media is swamped by American media. When I lived in Europe, I didn't attempt to understand what the hell was going on. When we were deciding whether to move to the US for a career opportunity after living in Canada for some time, I was very interested in understanding it.

 

[Monroe]

The Catholic Church provides social and medical services in as many countries as will let them do so. It's part of what Catholics see as their mission. We believe Jesus said to feed His children, to clothe them, to heal the sick. The Catholic Church as many problems and it is entirely fair to bring them up and demand that they fix those issues and hold them responsible for the wrong they have done and continue to do. But the Catholic Church does believe and does perform good works as part of its mandate.

http://www.caritas-socialaction.org.uk/

The Catholic Church generally works with governments to pick up the slack and help in any way they can, within the bounds of our own faith requirements (such as the issue about not providing abortions or birth control).

Religion can do charitable work outside of medicine. Seeing as it can't keep it's dirty mitts outside of reproductive rights and can't fulfill obligations as employers, it shouldn't be employing people.