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. 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’.”
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
No, but there are legal statues in place to ensure that certain things are covered by health insurance.
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.
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:
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[sup]*[/sup]. 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.
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.
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.
