Support Choice?

[granfire]

So you're A-okay with all the schools in your neighbourhood becoming Pagan? It shouldn't bother you if the majority of people in your country are Pagan right?

Paganism is a religion, too.
Should stay out of schools.

We are having elections coming up for the board of education...one runs on the platform of 'putting the bible back in schools' when they only have a handful of subjects anyhow...if you want your kids religious, you take care of that. That's called Bible School on Sunday morning.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I've never criticised a religious group for not giving enough.

But many do. In fact, a major atheist organization responds to what they claim is the accusation 'how many hospitals have atheists built' by pointing out that Christians don't actually give enough. So this is a knife that cuts both ways, even if you're not holding the sword yourself.

How would you respond if your neighbourhood hospital was Seikh? Would you feel comfortable that your medical choices were limited to a religion that you didn't subscribe to? Other religions help the needy.

No problem. I have been treated in a Jewish hospital.

I think you have difficult time accepting that not everyone wants their medical choices controlled by your religious beliefs.

Not at all. In fact, the opposite. I have a difficult time accepting that religious groups that wish to contribute to the well-being of society by giving alms, food, shelter, and medical care should not be allowed to do so because they have some restrictions based on their religious beliefs. I'm not suggesting that society accept the restrictions religions place on their own faithful; I'm rather suggesting that it's none of society's business. As you have pointed out yourself, you have plenty of choices that don't involve receiving care at a religious-based health care organization.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So you're A-okay with all the schools in your neighbourhood becoming Pagan? It shouldn't bother you if the majority of people in your country are Pagan right?

I was born and raised Catholic, and spent a decade as a Wiccan before returning to my Catholic beliefs. Why would it bother me?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Paganism is a religion, too.
Should stay out of schools.

We are having elections coming up for the board of education...one runs on the platform of 'putting the bible back in schools' when they only have a handful of subjects anyhow...if you want your kids religious, you take care of that. That's called Bible School on Sunday morning.

As a Christian, I agree with this 100%. Religion has no place in public schools. There are private religious schools where parents can send their children if they wish them to be taught religious beliefs or values in a school setting.

 

[Tez3]

But many do. In fact, a major atheist organization responds to what they claim is the accusation 'how many hospitals have atheists built' by pointing out that Christians don't actually give enough. So this is a knife that cuts both ways, even if you're not holding the sword yourself.



No problem. I have been treated in a Jewish hospital.



Not at all. In fact, the opposite. I have a difficult time accepting that religious groups that wish to contribute to the well-being of society by giving alms, food, shelter, and medical care should not be allowed to do so because they have some restrictions based on their religious beliefs. I'm not suggesting that society accept the restrictions religions place on their own faithful; I'm rather suggesting that it's none of society's business. As you have pointed out yourself, you have plenty of choices that don't involve receiving care at a religious-based health care organization.

What was the food like?

 

[Monroe]

But many do. In fact, a major atheist organization responds to what they claim is the accusation 'how many hospitals have atheists built' by pointing out that Christians don't actually give enough. So this is a knife that cuts both ways, even if you're not holding the sword yourself.

Atheists don't have a church that we meet up at. I did donate money towards the new hospital they built in my community 3 years ago. It's not an "atheist" hospital. I felt that my taxes should go towards building hospitals and if not enough money was available for the hospital, we would need to pay more taxes locally to fund it.

No problem. I have been treated in a Jewish hospital.

So if you couldn't get a blood transfusion at a religious hospital because it was against their beliefs you wouldn't mind at all?

Not at all. In fact, the opposite. I have a difficult time accepting that religious groups that wish to contribute to the well-being of society by giving alms, food, shelter, and medical care should not be allowed to do so because they have some restrictions based on their religious beliefs. I'm not suggesting that society accept the restrictions religions place on their own faithful; I'm rather suggesting that it's none of society's business. As you have pointed out yourself, you have plenty of choices that don't involve receiving care at a religious-based health care organization.

Except not every community has the same options. There are smaller communities with only a religious hospital to go to and in an emergency, I could be in an area where only a religious hospital is available. When you have hospitals refusing to offer plan B to rape victims, it's a problem.

 

[ballen0351]

[Its not the govts job to provide social programs. Unfortunately people are to damn lazy to take care of themselves they allow the govt to run their lives for them. They have taken programs designed to be temporary emergency help and now live for generations on these programs. They said on the local news today over 50% of people on unemployment in the US right now are on long term unemployment and have been for over a year. If you can't find a job in a year your not trying hard enough. So your right I have no problem giving to my church every week but I don't want to pay more in taxes to be waisted on lazy people that wont even try to help themselves

I don't need to thank them. Aside from showing up to weddings and a funeral, I haven't had need from a Catholic church. But I have received social services provided by my tax dollars in Canada and my taxes in the UK. Seems religious people are happy to pay tithes to a religion that only gives social funds strictly according to their rules. But the idea of paying taxes to do the same work but not according to their set of rules, they get their knickers in a twist.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Except not every community has the same options. There are smaller communities with only a religious hospital to go to and in an emergency, I could be in an area where only a religious hospital is available. When you have hospitals refusing to offer plan B to rape victims, it's a problem.

First, I'm not aware of those circumstances. Second, "Plan B" is not a medical emergency treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel

Emergency contraception
Levonorgestrel is used in emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), both in a combined Yuzpe regimen which includes estrogen, and as a levonorgestrel-only method. The levonorgestrel-only method uses levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (as a single dose or as two .75 mg doses 12 hours apart) taken within 3 days of unprotected sex, with one study indicating that beginning as late as 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse could be effective. There are many brand names of levonorgestrel-only ECPs, including: Escapelle, Plan B, Levonelle, NorLevo, Postinor-2, i-pill, "Next Choice" and 72-HOURS.[4]

Third, not all religious hospitals refuse the use of such treatment in all circumstances, even when against the principles of that religion:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pr...-lobbies-texas-catholic-hospitals-on-abortif/

October 19, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A large Catholic hospital network in Texas is prescribing the abortifacient “morning-after pill.” Seton Catholic hospitals decided to provide the abortifacient Plan B emergency contraception to sexual assault victims after lobbying by NARAL Pro-Choice Texas.

And fourth, you're conflating (intentionally?) the new rule being imposed on religious employers by the Obama Administration. This is NOT the medical treatment provided, but the medical insurance provided to employees of religious organizations.

So it has nothing to do with providing 'morning after' pills to rape victims; it has to do with providing health insurance to employees of religious organizations that covers both contraceptives and abortions.

I wonder why you keep side-tracking this discussion by changing it to something it's not?

 

[Cryozombie]

So you're A-okay with all the schools in your neighbourhood becoming Pagan? It shouldn't bother you if the majority of people in your country are Pagan right?

Yep, if it's what the people want... If I disagree with what they are doing, I can exercise my option to send my kid elsewhere or home school 'em. Bottom line... not my place to say "Oh boo hoo, *I* don't want *my* kid exposed to that so you all need to do what *I* say"

 

[ballen0351]

You keep brining up rape kits at hospitals and not providing the pregnancy drugs. I've never know a rape kit to come with the drugs to begin with. Unless there is more then one rape kit. Only kits I know of are for evidence collection, dna swabs, hair samples, pictures, physical exams ect. The birth control drugs are something you would speak to your regular doctor about

 

[Tez3]

First, I'm not aware of those circumstances. Second, "Plan B" is not a medical emergency treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel



Third, not all religious hospitals refuse the use of such treatment in all circumstances, even when against the principles of that religion:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pr...-lobbies-texas-catholic-hospitals-on-abortif/



And fourth, you're conflating (intentionally?) the new rule being imposed on religious employers by the Obama Administration. This is NOT the medical treatment provided, but the medical insurance provided to employees of religious organizations.

So it has nothing to do with providing 'morning after' pills to rape victims; it has to do with providing health insurance to employees of religious organizations that covers both contraceptives and abortions.

I wonder why you keep side-tracking this discussion by changing it to something it's not?

To be honest I was wondering what it was actually about, not knowing the American health service etc the discussion was going over my head. I see the problem now.

Who on earth decided to call it 'Plan B' emergency morning after pills, somewhat tacky.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To be honest I was wondering what it was actually about, not knowing the American health service etc the discussion was going over my head. I see the problem now.

There have been plenty of battles between states and the federal government and religious organizations with regard to providing actual health care; some have become quite heated. Pharmacists have refused to sell certain products, even though they are legal. Hospitals have refused to provide abortions or birth control. In some cases, even non-religious hospitals have refused to provide certain drugs and procedures, including the 'morning after' pill. I expect these battles will continue.

Nevertheless, that battle is not the current situation. The recent issue is only to do with the fact that the federal government has decided not to extend the traditional 'religious exemption' to religious institutions; those that provide health insurance to their employees will have to pay for coverage that provides both contraception and abortions. Those that provide their own self-financed health care are literally being required to pay for abortions, which conflict with their religious beliefs.

Who on earth decided to call it 'Plan B' emergency morning after pills, somewhat tacky.

I believe the idea originally was not that it was a tool to be used in rape cases, but rather in cases where consensual sex happens and the next morning there is some regret that contraceptives were not used proactively. In any case, I agree, not an ideal moniker.

 

[CanuckMA]

I think it simply hinges on definition. Is a hospital run by Catholics a religious institution or an institution run by a religious order?

Simply put, can Catholic hospitals refuse employment to non-Catholics because they are not Catholic? That usually makes the distinction.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think it simply hinges on definition. Is a hospital run by Catholics a religious institution or an institution run by a religious order?

Simply put, can Catholic hospitals refuse employment to non-Catholics because they are not Catholic? That usually makes the distinction.

Catholic hospitals do not hire only Catholics.

 

[CanuckMA]

Catholic hospitals do not hire only Catholics.

But would they be able to refuse employment solely on the basis that the person is not a Catholic without being sued?

Here's an example. My synagogue can actively turn down non-Jewish applicants without fear of being brought in front of a Human Rights complaint. My wife works for a major Jewish organization. Many non-Jews work there, and the closest to only hiring Jews they can come is requiring in depth knowledge of the Jewish community for certain positions. Both are Jewish organizations. Only one can be considered religious.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But would they be able to refuse employment solely on the basis that the person is not a Catholic without being sued?

I don't know. I know that they do not require only Catholics as employees.

Here's an example. My synagogue can actively turn down non-Jewish applicants without fear of being brought in front of a Human Rights complaint. My wife works for a major Jewish organization. Many non-Jews work there, and the closest to only hiring Jews they can come is requiring in depth knowledge of the Jewish community for certain positions. Both are Jewish organizations. Only one can be considered religious.

http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/02/should-catholic-institutions-employ-non-catholics

 

[Carol]

But would they be able to refuse employment solely on the basis that the person is not a Catholic without being sued?

Here's an example. My synagogue can actively turn down non-Jewish applicants without fear of being brought in front of a Human Rights complaint. My wife works for a major Jewish organization. Many non-Jews work there, and the closest to only hiring Jews they can come is requiring in depth knowledge of the Jewish community for certain positions. Both are Jewish organizations. Only one can be considered religious.

While I do not know for sure, I don't think so -- unless being Catholic is a BFOQ (Bona-fide Occupational Qualification, Canada's equivalent is a BFOR). Its possible for a Catholic hospital to require that a priest be Catholic or that the cantor for masses celebrated on site be Catholic, but not for a doctor to be Catholic or a records-keeper be Catholic.

When I worked for the First Church of Christ, Scientist, many of my duties were completely secular, such as news production. Others were church business, such as tape duplication. I did a lot of dubbing of spoken-word material on to cassette, for example. No knowledge of the religion was required to make a good recording. The church recorded material in several languages at the time -- the bigger challenge was getting to know what the different languages sounded like so I could ensure that I didn't record the tapes backwards or could catch the mistake of a pitch setting gone haywire. One of my first big "learning experiences" was dubbing an entire worship service in German, backwards...but not realizing anything was wrong when I checked the recording That was humbling.

Certainly, the church wanted to see work get done without a big hassle or debate over every production project that was church business. I never gave them such hassle, even though I did not necessarily agree with the teaching. I did most certainly accept their health insurance and made good use of it.

 

[granfire]

One of my first big "learning experiences" was dubbing an entire worship service in German, backwards...but not realizing anything was wrong when I checked the recording That was humbling.

I suppose you used a few words then you didn't know you knew! HIMMEL comes to mind! :lol:

 

[billc]

I believe someone mentioned the catholic church not dealing with it's problems with it's employees...well, let's take a look at how the government school system deals with it's employees...

http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/...-health-benefits-not-his-first-investigation/

 

[Carol]

I suppose you used a few words then you didn't know you knew! HIMMEL comes to mind! :lol:

Oh yes!!! At least -- I was saying them to myself. You know, church property -- its not nice to say some of those words out loud. Of course, that also meant you didn't get them spoken in your direction, either