I Pit Those who Believe in a War on Religion

[Budget Player Cadet]

So the latest big religious scandal: the diocese are up in arms about religiously affiliated institutions needing to provide health care to their employees in the same way as is federally mandated to any other employer (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/pennsylvania_senator_bob_casey.html). More specifically, that they have to cover birth control and contraceptives. The old men in charge claim that it violates their religious consciousness, and that therefore they should be exempt. This is already patently ridiculous, but what's more ridiculous is the rhetoric being thrown around about it: it's the first step on the road to complete religious prosecution and the christian holocaust. :smack:

These people have got to be fucking joking, right? Right?

...

Look, if I had a religious obligation to (consensually) cannibalize my parents at the date I turned of age, and my society had laws against cannibalism, would it be reasonable to demand that I comply with those laws? Yes! For god's sake, yes! Religious freedom means the freedom to exercise your religion within reasonable bounds. When your religion goes against the law, the law must either be proven discriminatory in court, or your religion has to compromise. And some people see this as a crass violation of the first amendment. Despite the fact that they have multibillion dollar organizations with no taxes, ridiculous influence on the legal system, and consist of the vast majority of the voters in the USA.

I think Jon Stewart nailed it best: "Religious freedom does not mean 'you get whatever you want'."

This particular case is made even more hilarious by the fact that it's catholics putting up a huge stink about it, claiming that it "violates their religious principles"... When in fact large numbers of catholic women who have sex use birth control and contraceptives (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/have-98-percent-of-catholic-women-used-contraceptives-not-quite/2012/02/14/gIQAZszTDR_blog.html)!

So yeah, the whole issue is bullshit, and those who buy into this bullshit (let alone those who propagate it) deserve to be down here in the pit.

[Death of Rats]

These people have got to be fucking joking, right? Right?




No, they really ARE that self-deluded. Why is it so hard to understand that after all the evidence that religous people, especially Christians, in the US have given us in that last few decades.

They truly belive that they are a presecuted minority for not being able to persecute others and that society should conform to them.

[Chessic Sense]

Surely you see the difference between a law prohibiting you from practicing your religion (You can't eat your parents) and a law requiring you to violate your religion (any office-taker must publicly swear the YHWH is the one, true God). Which one does the birth control law look more like?

[Maus Magill]

Someone else pointed this out, but I'm too lazy to look for it. The Bishops' big beef is that since they would be paying the insurance providers, and the insurance providers would be paying for the contraception, then they are indirectly paying for contraception, and they shouldn't have to.

If that is the case, wouldn't they also be allowed to prohibit their (Non-Catholic) employees from even buying contraception out of their own pockets?

[LonesomePolecat]

I fail to see how the Catholic church refusing to pay for birth control and abortions is in any way comparable to ritual cannibalism, and the government at all levels is required to make reasonable accommodations to religion. It's why the Santerians won a victory in a court case which allowed them to sacrifice animals in their ceremonies, and it's why your co-workers can't be forbidden to keep a Bible and a votive candle burning in front of a picture of Jesus on their desks at work.

Women do not have a fundamental right to have someone else pay for their birth control and abortions.

[LonesomePolecat]

Someone else pointed this out, but I'm too lazy to look for it. The Bishops' big beef is that since they would be paying the insurance providers, and the insurance providers would be paying for the contraception, then they are indirectly paying for contraception, and they shouldn't have to.

If that is the case, wouldn't they also be allowed to prohibit their (Non-Catholic) employees from even buying contraception out of their own pockets? The question then becomes, why does the federal government have the power to require insurance companies to pay for birth control and abortions? Why are the Catholic church and the insurance company not allowed to negotiate a policy tailored to the church's needs?

[constanze]

Someone else pointed this out, but I'm too lazy to look for it. The Bishops' big beef is that since they would be paying the insurance providers, and the insurance providers would be paying for the contraception, then they are indirectly paying for contraception, and they shouldn't have to.

Only that this is already the case (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/14/charles-colson-still-repeating-a-lie-he-knows-is-a-lie/) in several states now.

Colson’s ministry is based in Virginia. Once Obama’s nationwide mandate goes into effect, religious employers in Virginia will for the first time have a conscience clause allowing them to opt out of directly providing this coverage. They have to offer this coverage now — with no conscience clause exempting religious employers.

Chuck Colson, an employer in the state of Virginia, has been operating under this mandate since 1996, when Republican Gov. George Allen signed the state’s mandate into law.

link (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/10/old-men-pretending-to-be-newly-upset-at-old-news/)
President Barack Obama’s policy on health insurance for contraception is not a departure from current law. It does not deviate from the established rules. And Catholic institutions have been abiding by these same rules for more than a decade.

So when the clerical lobbyists suddenly jump up screaming that this is a brand new cause for outrage and alarm, then they just look silly. And transparently dishonest.

Moreover, Obama has given them an out-clause. They got what they claimed to want. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/10/their-bluff-has-been-called-will-the-bishops-know-when-to-fold-em/)
The U.S. Catholic bishops have spent the week denying that they’re simply trying to prohibit health insurance from covering contraception. It’s not about that, they insisted, but about religious liberty.

Today, President Barack Obama called their bluff, carving out an “accomodation” that removes any grounds for a complaint about “freedom conscience” or “religious liberty,” while firmly insisting that the law is still the law, and that the law rightly prohibits discrimination against women in preventive health insurance.

If that is the case, wouldn't they also be allowed to prohibit their (Non-Catholic) employees from even buying contraception out of their own pockets?

This is getting into burkha-logic (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/09/bishops-and-burkhas-and-buggies/).

[Eve]

Apparently I am personally choking both New York in general and Archbishop Dolan in particular:
“There are elements of immorality and secularism and materialism, all those -isms that choke us there, but in general I find New York a beautifully receptive field for the good news of Jesus.”
Choking New York plays havoc with my manicure, I can tell you.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The question then becomes, why does the federal government have the power to require insurance companies to pay for birth control and abortions? Why are the Catholic church and the insurance company not allowed to negotiate a policy tailored to the church's needs?
The church is allowed to negotiate a policy tailored to whatever it wants. The church was complaining about the requirement being imposed on non-church religious employers: Catholic hospitals, Lutheran schools, whatever.

It's a bunch of sleight-of-hand. Remember when Bricker pointed out that Catholic Charities weren't affiliated with the Church, and thus should not lose federal funding because of things the Church did? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558727&highlight=catholic+charities)

Why, then, should Catholic Charities and similar organizations get the benefits of Church affiliation?

[kushiel]

Women do not have a fundamental right to have someone else pay for their birth control and abortions.

With that argument, we might as well just get rid of health insurance altogether. The Church should have men document all their sexual partners and each time they have sex to get covered for Viagra, since seed not used for procreation is wasted. But the Church also preaches monogamy, so if your wife is past menopause, too bad so sad no ED drugs for you. Oooooh, how about requiring proof that you did not get HIV from homosexual relations? After all, there's no fundamental right to cover those that have engaged in sodomy! :rolleyes:

[carnivorousplant]

Women do not have a fundamental right to have someone else pay for their birth control and abortions.

I don't believe that is the problem. The problem is that religious institutions should abide by the same laws as other employers. Whether insurance should pay for contraceptives and abortions is another question.
If "someone else pay(s) for their birth control" then someone else won't have to pay for as many abortions. :)

[Budget Player Cadet]

Surely you see the difference between a law prohibiting you from practicing your religion (You can't eat your parents) and a law requiring you to violate your religion (any office-taker must publicly swear the YHWH is the one, true God). Which one does the birth control law look more like?

And the Christian Scientists? What about them? Using medicine violates key tenets of their belief entirely. Is it reasonable, then for a business affiliated with the Christian Scientists to make their mandated insurance policy essentially "Take a bath in the river and pray"? Would that be reasonable? Please remember that we aren't talking about churches. We're talking about religious hospitals, universities, and the like. Places like Notre Dame. Do you think everyone that works there is a catholic?

Furthermore, I fail to see how the difference you're making out matters – in my example above, failing to eat my parents is a violation of my religion, much in the same way that being forced to pay for contraceptives is for the Catholics. In the case of an optional ritual, you might have a point, but if a mandatory religious ritual is impossible on legal grounds, then the law is requiring me to violate my religion.

Look, I'm sorry, but we have laws in this country. The Catholics don't get to avoid this simply through liberty of believing that their god doesn't like it. When you run a business, it is legally required to have a health insurance plan for its employees (which probably offends the religious conscience of quite a few Randroids), and there are certain things which legally need to be covered under this plan (which definitely offends Christian Scientists) such as blood transfusions (which offends the Jehovah's Witnesses) and contraception (which offends the Catholics). Religious freedom means the freedom to practice your religion. Not that you can expect to get whatever the hell you ask for.

I fail to see how the Catholic church refusing to pay for birth control and abortions is in any way comparable to ritual cannibalism, and the government at all levels is required to make reasonable accommodations to religion.

This makes no sense to me. Action against laws which are clearly discriminatory against certain religions makes sense, but forcing laws to bend to the whim of the religious is stupid.

Women do not have a fundamental right to have someone else pay for their birth control and abortions.

No, but there are legal statues in place to ensure that certain things are covered by health insurance.

The question then becomes, why does the federal government have the power to require insurance companies to pay for birth control and abortions?

This is a legitimately good question. I think it has something to do with ensuring that the insurance policy which the employers are bound to offer to their employees actually does anything.

[Bricker]

Look, if I had a religious obligation to (consensually) cannibalize my parents at the date I turned of age, and my society had laws against cannibalism, would it be reasonable to demand that I comply with those laws? Yes! For god's sake, yes! Religious freedom means the freedom to exercise your religion within reasonable bounds. When your religion goes against the law, the law must either be proven discriminatory in court, or your religion has to compromise. And some people see this as a crass violation of the first amendment. Despite the fact that they have multibillion dollar organizations with no taxes, ridiculous influence on the legal system, and consist of the vast majority of the voters in the USA.


Not quite an accurate summary of how religious freedom and laws purporting to impact religious exercise are analyzed.

For example, the law does not require that the Catholic Church ordain women as priests, even though -- by your summary -- it would. Normally an employer is free, under the law, to require its employees to wear a standard uniform -- may an employer thus forbid a female who wishes to wear a hijab, or must the employer make some sort of reasonable accommodation to her needs?

In EEOC v. Catholic University of America, the DC circuit held that: ...the Free Exercise Clause exempts the selection of clergy from Title VII and similar statutes and, as a consequence, precludes civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination suits by ministers against the church or religious institution employing them.

So it's not quite as cut and dried a question as you lay out here.

This is not to say your conclusion is wrong: while the original plan the President proposed of forcing organizations themselves to pay for the coverage might have run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause,I agree his new plan of simply requiring insurance companies to cover it is not a violation of that clause*. But I don't want the casual reader to accept your formulation of the law.


* I am not sure what regulation or law gives the President the power to order insurance companies to cover contraception, but that's a different issue than the religious one.

[Bricker]

When you run a business, it is legally required to have a health insurance plan for its employees....

It is?

[Maus Magill]

And the Christian Scientists? What about them? Using medicine violates key tenets of their belief entirely. Is it reasonable, then for a business affiliated with the Christian Scientists to make their mandated insurance policy essentially "Take a bath in the river and pray"? Would that be reasonable? Please remember that we aren't talking about churches. We're talking about religious hospitals, universities, and the like. Places like Notre Dame. Do you think everyone that works there is a catholic?
Good point. Should the Christian Science Monitor have to provide Health coverage to its employees at all?

[tagos]

Given how uncool he was about money-lenders in the Temple I suspect Jesus himself, if he returned, would be leading the 'War on Religion' as it is today.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It is?
I assume he means that if it offers health insurance, there are certain modalities it must cover.

[Sicks Ate]

I assume he means that if it offers health insurance, there are certain modalities it must cover.

No, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one...I think he meant exactly what he said.

[Budget Player Cadet]

To be honest, my knowledge of American health care law is muddled. I am a wee bit confused on how that actually works, but I also don't get, if mandatory health care for employees in certain fields or groups was not a thing, how this argument even exists.

[Sicks Ate]

I assume he means that if it offers health insurance, there are certain modalities it must cover.

This?

[Anduril]

Child rapists shouldn't have a say on how contraception should be funded.

[Really Not All That Bright]

To be honest, my knowledge of American health care law is muddled. I am a wee bit confused on how that actually works, but I also don't get, if mandatory health care for employees in certain fields or groups was not a thing, how this argument even exists.
Federal law does not require any employer to provide health insurance for its employees. Some states do require employers to provide health insurance for certain classes of employee, but that's not what were talking about.

However, your point regarding Christian Scientists (equally applicable to Jehovah's Witnesses, for that matter) is a good one.

[Bricker]

Child rapists shouldn't have a say on how contraception should be funded.

Accepting that this is true, how is it relevant?

Or did you mean to imply that because some Catholic priests were child rapists, the entirety of the American Catholic church, lay faithful, priests, and religious, are all barred from any say in the formation of this country's laws?

[Chessic Sense]

Good point. Should the Christian Science Monitor have to provide Health coverage to its employees at all?

I think you mean the "Christian Scientists". The Monitor is a secular newspaper, despite the name and origin.

Child rapists shouldn't have a say on how contraception should be funded.

That's all well and good, but what about Catholic priests?

[Lobohan]

That's all well and good, but what about Catholic priests?Ideally people who rape Catholic priests shouldn't be writing laws either.



Ontopic: The businesses that the churches own aren't required to provide insurance. If they choose to, they should have to offer the same insurance that the law mandates for everyone else.

As I said before in another thread, should a business owned by a Jehova's Witness be able to provide insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions? If not, why should the Catholic Church get a cutout?

In any case, 28 states have laws where businesses owned by churches are required to provide contraception coverage with their insurance. 8 states require the churches themselves to do it.

The reason the Bishops saw fit to throw a tantrum here is political. They want to seem besieged, because they are angry, bitter old twats. Look at the response they provided to Obama's very reasonable compromise:
http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-026.cfm

Its got random bolding like a Tea Party email. This is just the work of some Bishops that hate Obama and want to raise a stink. If this were an actual issue, they would have been bitching in all those other states.

[aruvqan]

and it's why your co-workers can't be forbidden to keep a Bible and a votive candle burning in front of a picture of Jesus on their desks at work.

Women do not have a fundamental right to have someone else pay for their birth control and abortions.
Well, the bible and picture are ok, most commercial buildings have rules against open flames.

And if you are not covering female specific meds, then viagra and its ilk should also be off the menu. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Frankly, as with Christian Scientists, the insurance is provided, nothing *makes* you use it. A christian scientist is not being forced to go to a doctor and accept a blood transfusion or whatever, and nothing is forcing the woman to use birth control or get an abortion.

The catholic church needs to just suck it up. To be frank, most people are not even *thinking* about anything religious at any given time, nor are we actively conspiring to persecute any specific religion at any given time.

[DiosaBellissima]

As I said over in the Daily Show thread in CS about this matter, the absolute best summation I can find is this quote from a NYT Op Ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics.html?_r=1):
"The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can. But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act."

When listening to debates on this whole issue, there is a lot of emotion and arguments tend to get muddled. That quote so perfectly and succinctly cuts right to the heart of the matter, imho.

[Duke]

Bricker, when the Virginia state law requiring Catholic universities and other institutions who provided insurance to include contraception as part of their insurance was signed by Gov. Allen in 1996, were there protests? Was it attacked as a "war on religion?"

[Bricker]

Bricker, when the Virginia state law requiring Catholic universities and other institutions who provided insurance to include contraception as part of their insurance was signed by Gov. Allen in 1996, were there protests? Was it attacked as a "war on religion?"

No.

Because there is no such law.

There is a law in Virginia that requires every insurance company to offer contraceptive coverage to the companies that select them, but no requirement for the companies (to include "Catholic universities and other institutions") to accept that offer or provide it to their employees. (See Va Code § 38.2-3407.5:1. "Coverage for prescription contraceptives."):

[Each] insurer [whose plans include] coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis, shall offer and make available coverage thereunder for any prescribed drug or device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive.

The only mandated contraception coverage in Virginia is created by Va. Code § 2.2-2818(B)(5), § 32.1-325 and § 38.2-3407.4:2; it applies only to state workers.

Been reading something slanted, have you? Better to go to the source (http://legis.state.va.us).

[Duke]

No.

Because there is no such law.

There is a law in Virginia that requires every insurance company to offer contraceptive coverage to the companies that select them, but no requirement for the companies (to include "Catholic universities and other institutions") to accept that offer or provide it to their employees. (See Va Code § 38.2-3407.5:1. "Coverage for prescription contraceptives."):



The only mandated contraception coverage in Virginia is created by Va. Code § 2.2-2818(B)(5), § 32.1-325 and § 38.2-3407.4:2; it applies only to state workers.

Been reading something slanted, have you? Better to go to the source (http://legis.state.va.us).

Nah, looked at a cite above. I had no idea it was slanted, honestly.

[Bricker]

Nah, looked at a cite above. I had no idea it was slanted, honestly.

In turn let me apologize; that line of mine came out pretty snarky, and I didn't mean it that way. Sorry.

[Bricker]

The church is allowed to negotiate a policy tailored to whatever it wants. The church was complaining about the requirement being imposed on non-church religious employers: Catholic hospitals, Lutheran schools, whatever.

It's a bunch of sleight-of-hand. Remember when Bricker pointed out that Catholic Charities weren't affiliated with the Church, and thus should not lose federal funding because of things the Church did? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558727&highlight=catholic+charities)

Why, then, should Catholic Charities and similar organizations get the benefits of Church affiliation?

Forget the Church affiliation part. Why does the federal government have the power to require insurance companies to pay for birth control and abortions, period?

[Budget Player Cadet]

Forget the Church affiliation part. Why does the federal government have the power to require insurance companies to pay for birth control and abortions, period?

Beats me, my issue is more to do with the fact that Religious institutions think that they're above that law in a way normal people aren't.

[bup]

Forget the Church affiliation part. Why does the federal government have the power to require insurance companies to pay for birth control and abortions, period?Commerce clause?

I have no idea, honestly. Seems like a good guess.

In my mind stock-issuing corporations have shown that they will screw employees every chance they get. Being amoral, solely interested in pleasing stockholders, they pretty well fit the definition of a sociopath.

So it's not surprising they have to be watched and checked on at every turn. The free market will not protect American workers well enough.

Seems like maybe commerce, to me. Or the general welfare. That one's not invoked much, though, is it?

[YogSosoth]

Many states already have the provisions that Obama made into federal law. I remember when this issue flared up a couple weeks ago, it was noted that 20 something states have laws that mirror what Obama did. Religious didn't get all uppity over that. In an article I read around that time, some religious guy said that was because its a state issue

So let me get this straight, crazy religionists, its ok for the state but not the fed to "force" you to pay for contraception?

Shit, they just get dumber and dumber. I also love how on the Daily Show, they showed a "panel" of religious leaders discussing the question on Hannity. All old men, each one of whom think they know what's best for women

[Really Not All That Bright]

Forget the Church affiliation part. Why does the federal government have the power to require insurance companies to pay for birth control and abortions, period?
Because it has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which as you've previously admitted includes regulation of the health insurance market (under Wickard). This is not a new type of federal regulation. See, for example the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978*, which requires health insurers to cover maternity expenses on the same basis as other types of care.

*and which already required health insurers to cover contraception, according to the EEOC (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html).

[Maus Magill]

I think you mean the "Christian Scientists". The Monitor is a secular newspaper, despite the name and origin.

The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Christian Science Publishing Society, which is under the authority of the Christian Science Board of Directors.

My question still stands.

[Bricker]

Because it has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which as you've previously admitted includes regulation of the health insurance market (under Wickard). This is not a new type of federal regulation. See, for example the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which requires health insurers to cover maternity expenses on the same basis as other types of care.

Yes. Very valid point.

I should have asked, "Why does the President have this power?" It's undisputed (at least by me) that Congress does.

[miss elizabeth]

Women do not have a fundamental right to have someone else pay for their birth control and abortions.

Looks like they do now, asshole.

[Bricker]

Looks like they do now, asshole.

I'm not sure that's entirely settled.

As I asked above, how does the President get the authority to order insurance companies to extend this kind of coverage?

[steronz]

As I asked above, how does the President get the authority to order insurance companies to extend this kind of coverage?

That's a good question, and one for lawyers and bureaucrats to hash out in a dark room somewhere. It's the sort of boring, menial decision that gets made all the time without the public even caring.

What it does not amount to, and I think we can all agree, is a calculated war on religion. So get your level-headed, rational analysis out of the pit and let's bash some people!

[Telemark]

The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Christian Science Publishing Society, which is under the authority of the Christian Science Board of Directors.

My question still stands.

A friend used to work for the CSM. They provided pretty standard health care plans for their employees, many of whom don't practice Christian Science. They also offered prayer-based plans, presumably at a discount.

[Bricker]

That's a good question, and one for lawyers and bureaucrats to hash out in a dark room somewhere. It's the sort of boring, menial decision that gets made all the time without the public even caring.

What it does not amount to, and I think we can all agree, is a calculated war on religion. So get your level-headed, rational analysis out of the pit and let's bash some people!

No, I agree it's not a war on religion. But in its execution, it reflects an indifference towards the protected status that religion holds as a result of the First Amendment.

And I don't agree it's boring. To move a power held by Congress, where you need 200+ reps and 51+ senators to agree on something before it happens, to the Oval Office, where one person can make it happen, is a fairly significant move. there are some areas where it makes perfect sense; I'm not sure this is one of them.

[Lobohan]

Yes. Very valid point.

I should have asked, "Why does the President have this power?" It's undisputed (at least by me) that Congress does.Congress made the Affordable Care Act. I assume that the ability for the administration to do this was in there. Is it not?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yes. Very valid point.

I should have asked, "Why does the President have this power?" It's undisputed (at least by me) that Congress does.
Congress delegated that power to the executive (http://healthreform.kff.org/~/media/Files/KHS/docfinder/8012011_hhs_preventiveservices.pdf) under the Public Health Service Act.
The Departments note that PHS Act section 2713(a)(4) gives HRSA the authority to develop comprehensive guidelines for additional preventive care and screenings for women “for purposes of this paragraph.” In other words, the statute contemplated HRSA Guidelines that would be developed with the knowledge that certain group health plans and health insurance issuers would be required to cover the services recommended without cost-sharing, unlike the other guidelines referenced in section 2713(a), which pre-dated the Affordable Care Act and were originally issued for purposes of identifying the non-binding recommended care that providers should provide to patients. These HRSA Guidelines exist solely to bind nongrandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers with respect to the extent of their coverage of certain preventive services for women.

[Bricker]

Congress delegated that power to the executive (http://healthreform.kff.org/~/media/Files/KHS/docfinder/8012011_hhs_preventiveservices.pdf) under the Public Health Service Act.

Yes. But Congress did not exempt this from the Administrative Procedure Act's public notice and commentary period, did they? The executive cannot simply promulgate new rules without complying with the notice and comment period, can he?

[Bricker]

Congress made the Affordable Care Act. I assume that the ability for the administration to do this was in there. Is it not?

Not that I can find. Admittedly, it's a long bill. But we've passed it , so now we know what's in it.

More specifically, the Secretaries of various executive departments have the power the issue new rules that could indeed have this effect, but only after either a delay for public comment OR a finding of good cause why there's no time for such public comment. So far as I'm aware, there has been neither.

[Bryan Ekers]

I can vaguely understand how one wouldn't want employers to be able to casually pick-and-choose what they'll cover, in the sense that sooner or later some company will claim to insure its employees but has managed to find reasons to reject 95% of what a typical policy covers, leaving coverage that is effectively useless.

Of course, the whole employer-insurance model kinda baffles me.

[you with the face]

Shit, they just get dumber and dumber. I also love how on the Daily Show, they showed a "panel" of religious leaders discussing the question on Hannity. All old men, each one of whom think they know what's best for women

What kills me is that no one at Fox News took a look at all those men and either didn't bother or couldn't find a female token or two to stick in there. There were more black dudes represented than women, and females make up half the population!

Might be a bit wishful thinking on my part, but it would be awesome if maybe, just maybe, Catholic women would think a little bit about who really here is being oppressed. It ain't the church.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yes. But Congress did not exempt this from the Administrative Procedure Act's public notice and commentary period, did they? The executive cannot simply promulgate new rules without complying with the notice and comment period, can he?
I doubt it, which is probably why a comment period is provided for in the first page of the interim rule I linked to above.

[Bricker]

I doubt it, which is probably why a comment period is provided for in the first page of the interim rule I linked to above.

The comment page you linked to is from July of last year, and cannot possibly have been for the President's recent announcement of a rule change.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Presumably the President didn't want to announce the rule change until the rule was finalized.
In response to the request for comments on the interim final regulations, the Departments received considerable feedback regarding which preventive services for women should be considered for coverage under PHS Act section 2713(a)(4). Most commenters, including some religious organizations, recommended that HRSA Guidelines include contraceptive services for all women and that this requirement be binding on all group health plans and health insurance issuers with no religious exemption. However, several commenters asserted that requiring group health plans sponsored by religious employers to cover contraceptive services that their faith deems contrary to its religious tenets would impinge upon their religious freedom. One commenter noted that some religious employers do not currently cover such benefits under their group health plan due to their religious beliefs.

<snip>

Even if the APA requirements for notice and comment were applicable to these regulations, they have been satisfied. This is because the Secretaries find that providing for an additional opportunity for public comment is unnecessary, as the July 19, 2010 interim final rules implementing section 2713 of the PHS Act provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the implementation of the preventive services requirements in this provision, and the amendments made in these interim final rules in fact are based on such public comments. Specifically, commenters expressed concerns that HRSA-supported guidelines issued under section 2713(a)(4) that included coverage of contraceptive services could impinge upon the religious freedom of certain religious employers. The flexibility that is afforded under these amendments is being provided to HRSA in order to allow HRSA the discretion to accommodate, in a balanced way, as discussed above, these commenter concerns.
See for yourself. This links directly to the Federal Register entry. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/html/2011-19684.htm)

[steronz]

But in its execution, it reflects an indifference towards the protected status that religion holds as a result of the First Amendment.

Man, look at this language from Really Not All That Bright's link:

In the Departments' view, it is appropriate that HRSA, in issuing these Guidelines, takes into account the effect on the religious beliefs of certain religious employers if coverage of contraceptive services were required in the group health plans in which employees in certain religious positions participate. Specifically, the Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions. Such an accommodation would be consistent with the policies of States that require contraceptive services coverage, the majority of which simultaneously provide for a religious accommodation.

<snip>

The definition set forth here is intended to reasonably balance the extension of any coverage of contraceptive services under the HRSA Guidelines to as many women as possible, while respecting the unique relationship between certain religious employers and their employees in certain religious positions.

It sounds to me like the people involved in making this decision have been bending over backwards to try and make everyone happy. I can't, in good faith, agree with your characterization of this as "indifference." Nobody is flippantly dismissing the requests of religious organizations here. That they ultimately made a decision that certain religious leaders disagree with doesn't mean that they arrived at that decision due to indifference.

No war, no indifference. Just a bunch of churchy-people whining 'cuz they lost.

[Buck Godot]

Should conscientious objectors or Cathicls against the death penalty be able to avoid taxes because some of their money goes to fund wars or executions that are against their beliefs?

[John Mace]

Should conscientious objectors or Cathicls against the death penalty be able to avoid taxes because some of their money goes to fund wars or executions that are against their beliefs?
No.

[Gagundathar]

[Church Lady]

You know who was behind all of this?

Satan!

[/Church Lady]

[Voyager]

First, could someone point me to the requirement that insurance cover abortions? I don't think it exists, and the church would really be yelling at that one.

Not quite an accurate summary of how religious freedom and laws purporting to impact religious exercise are analyzed.

For example, the law does not require that the Catholic Church ordain women as priests, even though -- by your summary -- it would. Normally an employer is free, under the law, to require its employees to wear a standard uniform -- may an employer thus forbid a female who wishes to wear a hijab, or must the employer make some sort of reasonable accommodation to her needs?

Direct church employees are still not covered, IIRC. The requirement is only for employees of church-affiliated institutions like colleges. While the church cannot be forced to hire female priests, I believe that Catholic universities are not allowed to discriminate against women. That would seem to be a more appropriate analogy.

[Bricker]

Presumably the President didn't want to announce the rule change until the rule was finalized.

See for yourself. This links directly to the Federal Register entry. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/html/2011-19684.htm)

No. The original rule was the one that's the subject of this announcement. You can see the date at the top of the page: Wednesday, August 3, 2011.

The President's change was just recently announced.

[Bricker]

First, could someone point me to the requirement that insurance cover abortions? I don't think it exists, and the church would really be yelling at that one.


Direct church employees are still not covered, IIRC. The requirement is only for employees of church-affiliated institutions like colleges. While the church cannot be forced to hire female priests, I believe that Catholic universities are not allowed to discriminate against women. That would seem to be a more appropriate analogy.

And what of EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (DC Cir. 1994)?

[Lightnin']

And what of EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (DC Cir. 1994)?

What of it? I must have left my legal precedents in my other pants.

Seriously, why do you do this? You know we're not all lawyers here- so why do you expect us to be able to look up the exact case you're talking about and give an informed legal opinion?

[Sicks Ate]

I wish this were a thread about the war on religion.

[Paranoid Randroid]

What of it? I must have left my legal precedents in my other pants.

Searching legal literature is harder than I thought, but apparently that was in regard to Voyager’s comment that the church is not allowed to discriminate against female employees. In the cited case the court seems to have found that religious-based discrimination can be permissible, as long as the relevant position is sufficiently ministerial:

For example, in EEOC v. Catholic University of America, Sister McDonough alleged that in denying her tenure in the Department of Cannon Law, the University discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. n104 Sister McDonough argued that the exception did not apply because [*1060] she was not an ordained minister, and her role at the University was more educational than religious. n105 The court disagreed, finding that her employment duties met the ministerial-function test because "although Sister McDonough [was] not a priest, she [was] a member of a religious order who sought a tenured professorship in a field that is of fundamental importance to the spiritual mission of her Church.”

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=12162

[Damuri Ajashi]

Why, then, should Catholic Charities and similar organizations get the benefits of Church affiliation?

Because its an election year and Catholics are a swing vote that can be appeased by forcing the minimal cost onto insurance companies.

Of course I think that as a Christian Scientist (not particularly devout but pretty good at expressing moral outrage), insurance companies should have to pay for all the health care costs of all my employees. Or I am Amish and I don't believe in insurance altogether so my bank shouldn't have to comply with FDIC regulations or provide health insurance.

I mean we'd have to do that otherwise we run into an establishemnt of religion issue don't we? I mean we can't JUST mollify the Catholics right?

[YogSosoth]

I'm not sure that's entirely settled.

As I asked above, how does the President get the authority to order insurance companies to extend this kind of coverage?

Didn't it come from the HHS Department? As part of the cabinet, the President's within his rights to consult with, and decide on, rules that are going to be enforceable by the department. Health care and coverage is already currently enforced by them, aren't they? Why blame the President for something that a government department is mandated to do?

That's like saying that the President's responsible for the FDA legalizing a certain drug, or rejecting one. Sure, the head of the FDA probably works with the President, but to think of it in terms of a personal attack by the President is misleading.

You should revise your question again to take that into account. As far as I'm concerned, this rule is perfectly fine for him to implement, and insurers have to do it

[elucidator]

Wouldn't someone have mentioned it if his move were patently illegal? I seem to recall some rumors about an opposition party?

[Really Not All That Bright]

No. The original rule was the one that's the subject of this announcement. You can see the date at the top of the page: Wednesday, August 3, 2011.

The President's change was just recently announced.
Since this appears to be exactly the same rule, I'm going to have to ask for a citation. Otherwise, it looks like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. are simply late to the party.

[Bricker]

Since this appears to be exactly the same rule, I'm going to have to ask for a citation. Otherwise, it looks like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. are simply late to the party.

So, the President's recent announcement was... What, then?

[Bricker]

What of it? I must have left my legal precedents in my other pants.

Seriously, why do you do this? You know we're not all lawyers here- so why do you expect us to be able to look up the exact case you're talking about and give an informed legal opinion?

I cited this case in post #13.

[Voyager]

Searching legal literature is harder than I thought, but apparently that was in regard to Voyager’s comment that the church is not allowed to discriminate against female employees. In the cited case the court seems to have found that religious-based discrimination can be permissible, as long as the relevant position is sufficiently ministerial:



http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=12162
I was thinking more of people working in the Admissions Office. I was not disputing that the Church was allowed to discriminate in the selection of ministers.

[Voyager]

I cited this case in post #13.

You wrote
In EEOC v. Catholic University of America, the DC circuit held that:
...the Free Exercise Clause exempts the selection of clergy from Title VII and similar statutes and, as a consequence, precludes civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination suits by ministers against the church or religious institution employing them.

and I specifically mentioned that non-clergy (who would be closer to the people covered by the policy) were the issue. And also that direct of employees of churches are still covered by the exemption. So Post 13 was irrelevant to my question.
Again- are non-clerical employees of Catholic universities covered by anti-discrimination laws?

ETA: Now whether clerical employees of Catholic universities would be covered for contraception is an interesting point - but since I trust that they would never make use of it, the point would be moot.

[Bricker]

You wrote


and I specifically mentioned that non-clergy (who would be closer to the people covered by the policy) were the issue. And also that direct of employees of churches are still covered by the exemption. So Post 13 was irrelevant to my question.
Again- are non-clerical employees of Catholic universities covered by anti-discrimination laws?

ETA: Now whether clerical employees of Catholic universities would be covered for contraception is an interesting point - but since I trust that they would never make use of it, the point would be moot.

My bad. Thought I quoted more from that case. It involves a nun who sought tenure on the staff of Catholic University as a professor of canon law. (Full disclosure: I attended CUA and received a licentiate in canon law).

So EEOC v. CUA goes on to say:

Sister McDonough argues that even if the ministerial exception is still valid, the district court applied it too broadly in this case. She emphasizes the fact that she is not an ordained minister and argues that her duties were not pervasively religious. We find her first assertion immaterial and disagree with the second.
.
.
.
As a member of that faculty, she would be entrusted with instructing students in the "fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws" that governs the Church's sacramental life, defines the rights and duties of its faithful and the responsibilities of their pastors, and guides its administration.
.
.
.
That the University did not assert any religious basis for denying Sister McDonough tenure does not affect our conclusion; nor does the fact that her application never reached the ecclesiastical levels of review. The focus under the ministerial exception is on the action taken, not possible motives:

[T]he free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects the act of a decision rather than a motivation behind it. In these sensitive areas, the state may no more require a minimum basis in doctrinal reasoning than it may supervise doctrinal content.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So, the President's recent announcement was... What, then?
What I've already said it was: the announcement of what was then to be the rule as actually adopted. Discussion between the administration and the USCCB has been going on since last year:
Last November, amid deepening tensions between the bishops and the administration over the pending contraception mandate and other issues, Obama invited Dolan to the Oval Office, where the two men shared what Dolan called a productive and "extraordinarily friendly" meeting. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-01-25/catholic-obama-birth-control/52794196/1)
In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back. (http://www.care2.com/causes/bishop-calls-for-violent-opposition-to-birth-control-mandate.html)
Walker Nickless, the Bishop of the Diocese of Sioux City is warning whoever will listen that the contraception mandate in health care reform is literally a plot by the Devil that required “violent opposition.”

[Bricker]

What I've already said it was: the announcement of what was then to be the rule as actually adopted. Discussion between the administration and the USCCB has been going on since last year:

In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back. (http://www.care2.com/causes/bishop-calls-for-violent-opposition-to-birth-control-mandate.html)

I'm trying to avoid actually wading through the rule announcements, so maybe you can simplify things for me.

In my understanding, the President (or his Cabinet designees) made two announcements in the most recent month or so:

1. That religious institutions would have to pay to cover insurance contraception costs for their employees, and

2. Then, after considerable backlash to (1), a revised plan whereby the insurance companies would have to directly absorb the costs for contraception coverage.

Is this correct? And are you saying now that one rule covered both situations?

[Really Not All That Bright]

What? No. I'm only talking about (1). I didn't realize you had a problem with the second one.

[DianaG]

In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back. (http://www.care2.com/causes/bishop-calls-for-violent-opposition-to-birth-control-mandate.html)

Sarah Palin says she and other opponents are ready to fight to the death (http://nation.foxnews.com/sarah-palin/2012/02/15/palin-contraception-rule-unconstitional-act-obama-and-were-rising) over it.

Promises, promises...

I eagerly await the list of martyrs.

[elucidator]

...Newt Gingrich offered plenty of red meat, at one point accusing President Obama of wanting to "declare war" on the Catholic Church after his reelection....

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-newt-gingrich-cpac-20120210,0,4113865.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+(L.A.+Times+-+Politics)

[carnivorousplant]

Sarah Palin says she and other opponents are ready to fight to the death (http://nation.foxnews.com/sarah-palin/2012/02/15/palin-contraception-rule-unconstitional-act-obama-and-were-rising) over it.



I knew that Greta Van Susteren had moved to Fox some time ago, but I had no idea she had..."turned" is the best term I can think of.

[Really Not All That Bright]

In my understanding, the President (or his Cabinet designees) made two announcements in the most recent month or so:

1. That religious institutions would have to pay to cover insurance contraception costs for their employees, and

2. Then, after considerable backlash to (1), a revised plan whereby the insurance companies would have to directly absorb the costs for contraception coverage.

Is this correct? And are you saying now that one rule covered both situations?
What? No. I'm only talking about (1). I didn't realize you had a problem with the second one.
I see now that I misunderstood your original question. I didn't realize you objected to the insurer mandate, as opposed to the employer mandate, since the former is what the thread was about.

I assume Obama's "compromise" will be delayed subject to a new comment period, since it hasn't even been released in rule form yet. That is, if it ever actually gets implemented, since the original kerfuffle appears to have turned into an excuse for Catholics and the politically overwrought to complain about everything.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Strange, perhaps, for someone who has defended the Church in another recent thread or two, but I just … don’t see what the big deal is with the contraception mandate. Even persons (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/02/contraception-subsidiarity-and-catholic.html) who I normally respect phrase it as a grave example of religious freedom being crushed under the government’s foot:

The United States Council of Catholic Bishops has vigorously denounced this act of tyranny, and is working to reverse it. That is good, and we Catholics should support their efforts.

[…]

How surprised should they [the USCCB, who the author purports to have heretofore been too lax enforcing Church teachings] be now that one of these Catholic politicians -- Kathleen Sebelius -- has moved on from promoting abortion "rights" to actively persecuting her fellow Catholics, while other Catholics in the administration (such as Vice President Joe Biden) stand by without protest?


Any problems someone might have with the policy on, say, economic grounds, those may be perfectly reasonable and we should be willing to entertain them. But we live in a society that has made its choice with respect to the pervasiveness of contraception. So long as money if fungible and the targeted institutions pay their employees in money, any high ground the bishops (and their allies) wish to maintain through opposition is illusory. And not merely that — it actively provokes the overwhelming proportion of society who can’t see why contraception should be illicit.

If anyone yearns for a different kind of society, it’s time to back up, regroup, and weigh your options over the long run. Try as hard as you can to sway public opinion — but shrill and ultimately futile hostility will (I think) gain you nothing.

[Evil Captor]

Accepting that this is true, how is it relevant?

Or did you mean to imply that because some Catholic priests were child rapists, the entirety of the American Catholic church, lay faithful, priests, and religious, are all barred from any say in the formation of this country's laws?

Catholics may of course argue from the perspective of logic, but they have completely lost the moral high ground. Not because some Catholic priests were and are child rapists, but because the Catholic hierarchy covered it up, effectively enabling child rape. This makes the Catholic Church hierarchy's claims of morality as strong as that of any organization that enables child rapists.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I see now that I misunderstood your original question. I didn't realize you objected to the insurer mandate, as opposed to the employer mandate, since the former is what the thread was about.
That should read "latter". :smack:

[MaxTheVool]

Bricker: I think you're kind of missing the point of this thread.

Obviously, the place of religion in a secularly-governed society is a tricky one. Accommodations must be reached. Compromises must be made. Reasonable people can differ on precisely where those lines should be drawn. Throw in a very complicated system of laws and checks and balances and different branches of government and court decisions and so on and so forth and there's endless room for debate.

What no reasonable person could possibly believe, however, is that whatever the Obama administration and anything other than a fringe of a fringe of the left is either doing or advocating can be reasonably described as a war on religion, an attack on religion, or any such bullshit.

[Bricker]

Bricker: I think you're kind of missing the point of this thread.

Obviously, the place of religion in a secularly-governed society is a tricky one. Accommodations must be reached. Compromises must be made. Reasonable people can differ on precisely where those lines should be drawn. Throw in a very complicated system of laws and checks and balances and different branches of government and court decisions and so on and so forth and there's endless room for debate.

What no reasonable person could possibly believe, however, is that whatever the Obama administration and anything other than a fringe of a fringe of the left is either doing or advocating can be reasonably described as a war on religion, an attack on religion, or any such bullshit.

Agreed.

[Bricker]

What? No. I'm only talking about (1). I didn't realize you had a problem with the second one.

I don't have a substantive problem with the second one. I have a procedural problem: the President doesn't have the authority to order it, unless pursuant to procedures under the APA.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Eh, to be fair, I also wanted to pit the mind-numbing stupidity of some of those involved in this particular scandal for other reasons.

[foolsguinea]

Surely you see the difference between a law prohibiting you from practicing your religion (You can't eat your parents) and a law requiring you to violate your religion (any office-taker must publicly swear the YHWH is the one, true God). Which one does the birth control law look more like?Um, they are the same thing, you're picking prejudicial examples.

If I tell you that you can't donate to charity, that's forbidding the practice of your religion as much as forbidding you from eating human flesh. If I tell you to violate your religion by swearing allegiance to the Constitution, that's as much requiring you to violate your religion as making you swear by YHWH.

[elucidator]

Yep. And we do it all the time. Its unavoidable, but we at least try to make reasonable accomodations, and I think, over all, we do well. But if the Amish are going to drive their buggies at night, they have to have reflectors. Period. Full stop.

[Uncle Jocko]

In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back. (http://www.care2.com/causes/bishop-calls-for-violent-opposition-to-birth-control-mandate.html)

The Diocese of Sioux City? Those folks out in western Iowa are, how shall I put this, rather hyper-puritanical in their beliefs. Dare I say, Taliban-esque? They did give us the gift of Rep. Steve King, after all.

What no reasonable person could possibly believe, however, is that whatever the Obama administration and anything other than a fringe of a fringe of the left is either doing or advocating can be reasonably described as a war on religion, an attack on religion, or any such bullshit.

Amen, amen, and amen. Yet we find ourselves surrounded, nay, besieged by rank upon rank of unreasonable persons. And they all seem to have megaphones. Or at least blogs and sympathetic news outlets.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Looks like they do now, asshole.

I've never understood why "asshole" is ok but "cunt" isn't. I guess one is generic enough that you shouldn't take offense and the other has a more specific nature to it.

[Broomstick]

Surely you see the difference between a law prohibiting you from practicing your religion (You can't eat your parents) and a law requiring you to violate your religion (any office-taker must publicly swear the YHWH is the one, true God). Which one does the birth control law look more like?
No one is FORCED to use contraception.

If the church can't convince it's followers to forego contraception why should that be the government's problem?

[Shakes]

I actually heard one of these fucknuts on the radio. He actually called birth control pills, "abortion pills".

I sincerely hope he was just saying that for hyperbole. Because man, if he wasn't, that's a whole new level a stupid I've never seen before.

[DianaG]

Really? I see that level of stupid with depressing frequency.

[Evil Captor]

I actually heard one of these fucknuts on the radio. He actually called birth control pills, "abortion pills".

I sincerely hope he was just saying that for hyperbole. Because man, if he wasn't, that's a whole new level a stupid I've never seen before.

It's not stupid. It's propaganda. BELIEVING it is stupid. And the Republicans, especially the social conservatives, have a lot of stupid people in their camp. Big tent, indeed!

[elucidator]

No one is FORCED to use contraception...

There is the method of celibacy by popular demand.

[purplehorseshoe]

No one is FORCED to use contraception.

If the church can't convince it's followers to forego contraception why should that be the government's problem?

** standing and applauding **

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I hope this also includes those atheists who say they're being persecuted in the US even though atheists in general form some of the wealthiest and most educated portions of the American population and there are numerous atheists in the intellectual fields.

[MaxTheVool]

I hope this also includes those atheists who say they're being persecuted in the US even though atheists in general form some of the wealthiest and most educated portions of the American population and there are numerous atheists in the intellectual fields.

So... you think the level of persecution and discrimination faced by atheists-for-their-atheism and Christians-for-their-Christianity, in the US at present, are comparable?

[Richard Parker]

I don't have a substantive problem with the second one. I have a procedural problem: the President doesn't have the authority to order it, unless pursuant to procedures under the APA.

What reason is there to think they won't be promulgating this amendment to the rule under the normal procedures for modifying an interim rule? Are you under the impression that the announcement of a rule never precedes formal notice and comment rulemaking for the final version?

[Really Not All That Bright]

What the hell are you talking about, Quin?

[Sarabellum1976]

All this controversy ought to be so simple.

If you believe abortion is wrong, it goes against your religion, any reason really, you should do your absolute best to avoid ever having an abortion. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.

If you believe that it's wrong to be gay, it goes against your religion, it's not natural, you find the idea of gay sex squicks you out, whatever, you should try to avoid having sex with anyone of your own gender. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.


I think it's a good motto for most controversial topics. Decide which side of the fence you're on, and conduct your own life accordingly. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.

[MaxTheVool]

I hope this also includes those atheists who say they're being persecuted in the US even though atheists in general form some of the wealthiest and most educated portions of the American population and there are numerous atheists in the intellectual fields.

Oh, and while you're answering my previous post, can you also post a link to prominent atheists describing minor regulatory decisions in hilariously exaggerated overwrought terms such as "a war on atheism"?

[Captain Amazing]

All this controversy ought to be so simple.

If you believe abortion is wrong, it goes against your religion, any reason really, you should do your absolute best to avoid ever having an abortion. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.

If you believe that it's wrong to be gay, it goes against your religion, it's not natural, you find the idea of gay sex squicks you out, whatever, you should try to avoid having sex with anyone of your own gender. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.


I think it's a good motto for most controversial topics. Decide which side of the fence you're on, and conduct your own life accordingly. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.


Honestly, that's stupid. I mean, it really is. If you think something is wrong...if you really think a thing is evil and destructive, you fight against it. What sort of person says, "There's evil in the world and I'm not going to try to combat it? Well, I'm not a racist, but I don't care if you discriminate against blacks. I would never oppress the poor, but I don't see why these Occupy Wall Street people are so upset."

If you really think there's an evil in this world, you have a moral duty to try to make it right. And if people really think that abortion or homosexuality are evils on the level of racism or oppressing the poor, then they had better try to do something about it, as misguided and foolish as I think they are.

[bmasters1]

All this controversy ought to be so simple.

If you believe abortion is wrong, it goes against your religion, any reason really, you should do your absolute best to avoid ever having an abortion. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.

If you believe that it's wrong to be gay, it goes against your religion, it's not natural, you find the idea of gay sex squicks you out, whatever, you should try to avoid having sex with anyone of your own gender. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.


I think it's a good motto for most controversial topics. Decide which side of the fence you're on, and conduct your own life accordingly. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.


This! :) It's just like those people who preach against television and the evils thereof. The problem is, they don't have to watch it! Unfortunately, that's not good enough for them-- if they can't look at it, you can't either.

[Lobohan]

I hope this also includes those atheists who say they're being persecuted in the US even though atheists in general form some of the wealthiest and most educated portions of the American population and there are numerous atheists in the intellectual fields.You're a real piece of shit, you know?

How many atheist presidents have there been? House members? Senate members? What is the most mistrusted demographic in America?

Atheists tend to do well because intelligent people tend to atheism.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Honestly, that's stupid. I mean, it really is. If you think something is wrong...if you really think a thing is evil and destructive, you fight against it. What sort of person says, "There's evil in the world and I'm not going to try to combat it? Well, I'm not a racist, but I don't care if you discriminate against blacks. I would never oppress the poor, but I don't see why these Occupy Wall Street people are so upset."

If you really think there's an evil in this world, you have a moral duty to try to make it right. And if people really think that abortion or homosexuality are evils on the level of racism or oppressing the poor, then they had better try to do something about it, as misguided and foolish as I think they are.

The difference is that not everything fought against is justifiably evil. Just because someone thinks something is evil does not necessarily make it so if that justification is born out of self-centered arrogance and ignorance. THAT is the evil worth fighting against.

[Sampiro]

I hope this also includes those atheists who say they're being persecuted in the US even though atheists in general form some of the wealthiest and most educated portions of the American population and there are numerous atheists in the intellectual fields.

Depending on the reports and how you cook the statistics the same is true of Jews, gays, and Asians. If you really think none of these groups receive "persecution" by form of discrimination, hate crimes, ostracism, being the object of slander and libel by the most prominent demagogues speaking to the masses of asses every day of their life, then you are...

a moment while I check the forum we're in... ah, yes, the Pit...

too fucking retarded to not require state aid, and while I don't mind my gay atheist tax dollars being used to help the retarded in general I would begrudge every penny you drain.

[John Mace]

The difference is that not everything fought against is justifiably evil. Just because someone thinks something is evil does not necessarily make it so if that justification is born out of self-centered arrogance and ignorance. THAT is the evil worth fighting against.

Well, duh! But since everyone thinks their idea of evil is right, then it really makes no difference. You don't get to tell other people what they think is worth fighting against.

[Richard Parker]

Well, duh! But since everyone thinks their idea of evil is right, then it really makes no difference. You don't get to tell other people what they think is worth fighting against.

Though, of course, in the context of this particular debate, you can do so if the other person's belief about evil is rooted in Kant instead of Scripture, because moral beliefs that also posit a magical sky being are deserving of special protection.

[Sampiro]

Sarah Palin says she and other opponents are ready to fight to the death (http://nation.foxnews.com/sarah-palin/2012/02/15/palin-contraception-rule-unconstitional-act-obama-and-were-rising) over it.

Promises, promises...



Can you even imagine the outrage if a prominent Democrat said they'd "fight to the death" to oppose a Republican president's policy? There'd be screams the next day that "She went on air and outright said she wants to commit treason and kill the president!"

[FixMyIgnorance]

Well, duh! But since everyone thinks their idea of evil is right, then it really makes no difference. You don't get to tell other people what they think is worth fighting against.

I have a say in it when their beliefs impinge on my life, where those beliefs are grounded in unfalsifiable, brainwashing, religious nonsense.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay-married. There's no reason to deny others that privilege -- there's no good argument for justifying it that doesn't boil down to "I don't like it." It doesn't really matter if you like it or not -- it's not your life. You don't get to tell other people how to live their lives.

Basically, I echo the earlier poster: Decide which side of the fence you're on, and conduct your own life accordingly. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.

[John Mace]

I have a say in it when their beliefs impinge on my life, where those beliefs are grounded in unfalsifiable, brainwashing, religious nonsense.

Uh, no. Everyone's beliefs start with unfalsifiable axioms*, whether religious derived or not. There is nothing objectively provable about the idea that killing random strangers is evil. Nor is it objectively provable that gays (or anyone) should be able to marry.

*A redundancy, but done on purpose to echo your phrasing.

[Lobohan]

Uh, no. Everyone's beliefs start with unfalsifiable axioms*, whether religious derived or not. There is nothing objectively provable about the idea that killing random strangers is evil. Nor is it objectively provable that gays (or anyone) should be able to marry.

*A redundancy, but done on purpose to echo your phrasing.Nothing is objectively provable. So that's a pretty feeble cop-out.

Rights don't exist except by what communities grant. Humans generally agree that the golden rule makes sense. Our government was made with that in mind.

So if your religion tells you to hate homosexuals, you're a bigot. It doesn't matter that you think you're doing the will of the creator of the universe. You're still being an asshole.

[Evil Captor]

Uh, no. Everyone's beliefs start with unfalsifiable axioms*, whether religious derived or not. There is nothing objectively provable about the idea that killing random strangers is evil. Nor is it objectively provable that gays (or anyone) should be able to marry.

*A redundancy, but done on purpose to echo your phrasing.

I never took you for a moral relativist, John. Interesting!

[FixMyIgnorance]

Uh, no. Everyone's beliefs start with unfalsifiable axioms*, whether religious derived or not. There is nothing objectively provable about the idea that killing random strangers is evil. Nor is it objectively provable that gays (or anyone) should be able to marry.

*A redundancy, but done on purpose to echo your phrasing.

Our beliefs and morality come from evolutionary/societal pressures and environmental feedback. There's nothing "objective" about the notion that killing random strangers is evil, but we define it as evil because our society largely agrees that it's a bad thing to do. Why? Because if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. Stable societies that make it out alive typically evolve the need for certain guidelines and rules.

Even though there's no such thing as objective morality, it doesn't mean we can't gauge the nature of subjectives. We generally think it's wrong to impinge on one another because we've decided that to maximize everyone's happiness, it's a good idea for us to have control over our destinies and how we live our own lives. This is because we're largely unhappy having someone else impose their own beliefs on how we should live our lives, because our belief systems may not match up at all.

That being said, some things are necessary evils. I don't like the fact that I have to go to work every day, but I do it because I value the ability to take advantage of America's infrastructure and everything it has to offer.

Is prohibiting gay marriage necessarily helping anyone? No. It's not the same as going to work because we have a society to uphold that we enjoy using, and it's not the same as deciding that it's a bad idea to kill people because that renders society unstable. Gay marriage hurts nobody. It's about allowing people to have the same rights as anyone else under reasonably comparable contexts, because, obviously, we enjoy having rights because it makes our lives better. Is a straight person's life made worse by allowing gay people to marry? No.

It's just about allowing two people to marry regardless of their sexual orientation, as prohibiting rights based on sexual orientation has no real justification with respect to utilitarian metrics for society at large.

There are logical, rational, and demonstrable reasons we can point to to justify why killing is wrong or why human rights are a good thing and so on and so forth. There are no reasonable arguments for preventing gay people to marry.

That's why it's denoted as "oppression." When you are trying to keep someone else's happiness down for no real reason than your own selfish benefit, when that benefit won't be lost in absence of that oppression, that is evil. And that is most certainly easier to justify as worth fighting against.

[Lobohan]

Our beliefs and morality come from evolutionary/societal pressures and environmental feedback. There's nothing "objective" about the notion that killing random strangers is evil, but we define it as evil because our society largely agrees that it's a bad thing to do. Why? Because if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. Stable societies that make it out alive typically evolve the need for certain guidelines and rules.

Even though there's no such thing as objective morality, it doesn't mean we can't gauge the nature of subjectives. We generally think it's wrong to impinge on one another because we've decided that to maximize everyone's happiness, it's a good idea for us to have control over our destinies and how we live our own lives. This is because we're largely unhappy having someone else impose their own beliefs on how we should live our lives, because our belief systems may not match up at all.

That being said, some things are necessary evils. I don't like the fact that I have to go to work every day, but I do it because I value the ability to take advantage of America's infrastructure and everything it has to offer.

Is prohibiting gay marriage necessarily helping anyone? No. It's not the same as going to work because we have a society to uphold that we enjoy using, and it's not the same as deciding that it's a bad idea to kill people because that renders society unstable. Gay marriage hurts nobody. It's about allowing people to have the same rights as anyone else under reasonably comparable contexts, because, obviously, we enjoy having rights because it makes our lives better. Is a straight person's life made worse by allowing gay people to marry? No.

It's just about allowing two people to marry regardless of their sexual orientation, as prohibiting rights based on sexual orientation has no real justification with respect to utilitarian metrics for society at large.

There are logical, rational, and demonstrable reasons we can point to to justify why killing is wrong or why human rights are a good thing and so on and so forth. There are no reasonable arguments for preventing gay people to marry.

That's why it's denoted as "oppression." When you are trying to keep someone else's happiness down for no real reason than your own selfish benefit, when that benefit won't be lost in absence of that oppression, that is evil. And that is most certainly easier to justify as worth fighting against.I don't do this enough, but that is a wonderful post.

[MaxTheVool]

people how to live their lives.

Basically, I echo the earlier poster: Decide which side of the fence you're on, and conduct your own life accordingly. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.

I have to agree with Captain Amazing here. I support gay marriage, and am pro-choice. But I don't think I can dismiss the pro-life argument simply by saying "if you don't want an abortion, don't have one", any more than I can say "if you don't think murder should be legal, don't murder people". The pro-life argument is that a fetus is a person and that thus abortion is murder. I strongly disagree with that position, because I do not believe a fetus is a person, but I don't think it's a position that is morally bankrupt, or illogical, or instantly-handwaveable-away.

(Gay marriage, on the other hand, does fall, for me, into the "you don't like it? don't do it" category...)

[elucidator]

Myself, at least as much instinct as reason, I do not like abortion. But it is not my call to make, not my body. Pretty much settles it, far as I am concerned.

[FixMyIgnorance]

I have to agree with Captain Amazing here. I support gay marriage, and am pro-choice. But I don't think I can dismiss the pro-life argument simply by saying "if you don't want an abortion, don't have one", any more than I can say "if you don't think murder should be legal, don't murder people". The pro-life argument is that a fetus is a person and that thus abortion is murder. I strongly disagree with that position, because I do not believe a fetus is a person, but I don't think it's a position that is morally bankrupt, or illogical, or instantly-handwaveable-away.

(Gay marriage, on the other hand, does fall, for me, into the "you don't like it? don't do it" category...)

I agree that abortion isn't nearly as clear-cut and definitely has room for justifiable debate on both sides.

While I am personally pro-choice, I do respect pro-life arguments as long as they are not merely appeals to religious nonsense.

Things like gay marriage, though.... there's just no excuse. There's no reason to outlaw it. The point, though, is that it's not a strong position to argue for impinging on others simply because you don't like how they live their life. There are obvious exception cases (at what point is a fetus/etc considered a person and therefore someone you can impinge upon?).

As you can probably guess, I argue from the base of utility. Life-prevention arguments are not persuasive because, well, any action we take can be argued to be preventing future life (hell, even masturbation). Impingement is only a problem when the entity being affected is experiencing a sentient, known, realized decrease in utility. If they can't do that in any way, they aren't a person yet.

[Sampiro]

I've wondered if Obama's least scrupulous campaign handlers are going to start a "There is a war on religion... but it's on Protestantism!" meme among the foilhat Fundies. The Supreme Court is already Protestant free (6 Catholics and 3 Jews) and not one of the 3 GOP frontrunners is a Protestant (1 Mormon and 2 Catholics), and Santorum is on record as saying Protestantism has slipped off of the Christian spectrum. Obviously Gingrich and Santorum are both parts of a Papist plot that by November could put 2/3 of the government under the direct control of the Vatican. ("Initiate Order LXVI!") Or, you can go with the Mormon, which is a whole other ball of crazywax, but really, you'll have plenty of time to Mormonate when you're dead.

Or, you can go with good ol' Protestant Barry from Chi-town.


In a way I'd be very disappointed if they tried this and in a way I'd be very disappointed if they didn't (considering logic sure as hell isn't going to reach these people).

[BigT]

What the hell are you talking about, Quin?

The same logic that says that Christians aren't persecuted says that atheists aren't persecuted. You are not for fear of your life as an atheist. You are not in fear of losing your freedom as an atheist.

Of course, you could be using persecution less than literally, but then you'd have to allow Christians to do the same thing. Saying that Christians aren't persecuted when people treat them badly, but atheists are when they are treated badly just doesn't make sense.

Very, very few people in the U.S. are persecuted. Deal with it. Or make fun of a little kid for pointing out that you do the same shit you hate in others.

I mean, there are people in this thread seriously arguing that never having been president means you are persecuted. Puh-lease.

[MaxTheVool]

I mean, there are people in this thread seriously arguing that never having been president means you are persecuted. Puh-lease.

Are there? Who are they?

More importantly, though, no one is crying and wailing "oh, we poor persecuted atheists", whereas many prominent Christians are crying and wailing about being persecuted. So it's ironic that Christians both (a) are clearly by any measure far LESS persecuted/harassed/discriminated against than atheists, but (b) make a much bigger public fuss about it.

[Lobohan]

The same logic that says that Christians aren't persecuted says that atheists aren't persecuted. You are not for fear of your life as an atheist. You are not in fear of losing your freedom as an atheist.

Of course, you could be using persecution less than literally, but then you'd have to allow Christians to do the same thing. Saying that Christians aren't persecuted when people treat them badly, but atheists are when they are treated badly just doesn't make sense.

Very, very few people in the U.S. are persecuted. Deal with it. Or make fun of a little kid for pointing out that you do the same shit you hate in others.

I mean, there are people in this thread seriously arguing that never having been president means you are persecuted. Puh-lease.The people in this country that count Jesus as their homey are the ones in charge. To equate the atheist experience in America with the Christian experience is simply nonsense. Atheists are the most distrusted group in the country. (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.T0BLKsW0y5I). Seriously (http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/). You don't think that parcels out to countless small offenses every day? How many relationships have been destroyed by bigoted parents, how many jobs have been lost, promotions passed over, children disowned by people coming out as atheist? I don't know the number, but I'd bet that it's considerably higher than any pushback Christians get.

And you don't think that it's not just a little shitty that atheism precludes you from national office? (With the exception of the one house member atheist from California.)

Now, obviously, America doesn't persecute atheists in the sense of pogroms, being an atheist isn't as bad as being black before 1970, but it's certainly worse than having Jesus as your co-pilot. Which makes it absurd to say that Christians are just as "persecuted" or whatever than atheists. Simply nonsense.

[Lobohan]

Are there? Who are they?

More importantly, though, no one is crying and wailing "oh, we poor persecuted atheists", whereas many prominent Christians are crying and wailing about being persecuted. So it's ironic that Christians both (a) are clearly by any measure far LESS persecuted/harassed/discriminated against than atheists, but (b) make a much bigger public fuss about it.I think Big T means me. To clarify, I didn't mean it's a terrible burden to be an Atheist in America. Just that Christians are playing the game on easy. And them having the nerve to bitch while others are playing on hard is hella repugnant.

[FixMyIgnorance]

I think it's a burden to be atheist in America. I have to bite my tongue so goddamned often because speaking out against nonsensical religious thought processes isn't good for keeping friends and playing nice with colleagues.

[Budget Player Cadet]

True "persecution" against atheists is not present. But there is a general disadvantage involved in being atheist which the figures on things like income equality won't (and in fact can't) represent.

[Trinopus]

True "persecution" against atheists is not present. . . .

Well, it's there, but at a pretty low level.

For instance, at least in the past, some soldiers declaring "atheist" for the religion in the U.S. Army were made to work on Sundays, while religious soldiers were given time off for chapel.

Not like being Jewish in Berlin in 1938... But it happens...

[elucidator]

I been to church, I'd rather work. Rather go fishing than either, but still....