Separation of church and state on birth control

[BladeVenom]

Just make birth control pills over the counter like they should be.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Its not that simple.

We have a law that tries to force employers to provide services they have a moral objection to.

For people that have no morals or values this might not seem like a big deal.

The problem is simple.

Religions have no problem telling other people what to do, but site "freedom of religion" when it comes back their way.

They LOVE the tax-free status they are given, but somehow think that comes with no requirements or regulations.

The rule is simple. You lawfully hire someone working in the US, you have to follow US labor laws.

Period.

 

[Ninjahedge]

And for every story like this there are many where someone who has an incurable illness is somehow cured. Medicine cant explain it, and doctors call it a miracle, and the patient says it due to prayer.

Unsubstantiated.

the actual number of these "miracles" is few and far between, not a scientific study to be sure.

but just like disasters, we remember them more readily than what happens "on average".

(Example, crime rates and other tragedies have actually gone DOWN, but people, when asked, believe that catastrophes are happening more often now.... It can be traced back to the availability and mass broadcast of these events in modern day media, not the actual number or size of events).

Maybe government then should also dictate prayer be used in every medical case?

I will bet money they find it is due to positive mental attitude rather than prayer.

I, for one, have no problem with religion being used to help heal a person through positive reinforcement. Where I draw the line is where it becomes a hindrance to modern medicine. Where people choose prayer OVER medicine for themselves, or worse yet, for people who cannot choose (their kids/etc).

But, this has little to do with labor laws saying that you have to treat people a certain way if you hire them in the states.

Freedom of religion would not allow you to castrate a worker if your religion said it was OK to do. It would not allow you to brand them, or pay them below minimum wage even. You CANNOT start cherry-picking regulations to follow and not by application of religious tenets.


Period. (heh, we are up to second period already! 😉 )

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is simple.

Religions have no problem telling other people what to do, but site "freedom of religion" when it comes back their way.

They LOVE the tax-free status they are given, but somehow think that comes with no requirements or regulations.

The rule is simple. You lawfully hire someone working in the US, you have to follow US labor laws.

Period.

Yeap.

Religious organizations in the US enjoy broad immunity from legal restraints on what they do, but generally that immunity only applies to activities that are part and parcel to the religion itself. ie: the government can't force a church itself to provide these services, but if that church happens to own a car wash it's not like they are suddenly exempt from US labor law.

Think about it, if that were true we'd have a zillion religions tomorrow who all believed that labor regulations were from the devil and couldn't be obeyed.

 

[fskimospy]

Unsubstantiated.

the actual number of these "miracles" is few and far between, not a scientific study to be sure.

but just like disasters, we remember them more readily than what happens "on average".

(Example, crime rates and other tragedies have actually gone DOWN, but people, when asked, believe that catastrophes are happening more often now.... It can be traced back to the availability and mass broadcast of these events in modern day media, not the actual number or size of events).

I will bet money they find it is due to positive mental attitude rather than prayer.

I, for one, have no problem with religion being used to help heal a person through positive reinforcement. Where I draw the line is where it becomes a hindrance to modern medicine. Where people choose prayer OVER medicine for themselves, or worse yet, for people who cannot choose (their kids/etc).

But, this has little to do with labor laws saying that you have to treat people a certain way if you hire them in the states.

Freedom of religion would not allow you to castrate a worker if your religion said it was OK to do. It would not allow you to brand them, or pay them below minimum wage even. You CANNOT start cherry-picking regulations to follow and not by application of religious tenets.


Period. (heh, we are up to second period already! 😉 )

Actually, funny story. If anything, the medical literature suggests nobody should be prayed for ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all

Constitutional issues aside, by this logic the government should ban prayer for sick people. Of course that effect was not statistically significant, blah blah, I just thought it was funny. The real lesson from that study is that prayer has no effect one way or the other. It's purposeless from a medical care standpoint.

 

[Texashiker]

The rule is simple. You lawfully hire someone working in the US, you have to follow US labor laws.

Period.

No, not period.

Recently the supreme court ruled the first amendment precludes the application of federal employment-discrimination laws.

http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-Recognizes-a/130291/


This is another example of where a "right" overrides a "privilege".

Access to birth control pills is a privilege.

Practice of religion is a right.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

Just make birth control pills over the counter like they should be.

Actually not a good idea, there are side effects and complications that need to be addressed in order for the right formulation to be prescribed.

 

[fskimospy]

No, not period.

Recently the supreme court ruled the first amendment precludes the application of federal employment-discrimination laws.

http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-Recognizes-a/130291/


This is another example of where a "right" overrides a "privilege".

Access to birth control pills is a privilege.

Practice of religion is a right.

That case is not related to the discussion at hand. It only covers employees that serve a 'ministerial function'. It would be a pretty amazing stretch to claim that for all the employees of a hospital.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Actually not a good idea, there are side effects and complications that need to be addressed in order for the right formulation to be prescribed.

Worse yet, insurance wouldn't cover it at all then, which is a whole 'nother screwed up part of our system.

 

[blackangst1]

Actually, funny story. If anything, the medical literature suggests nobody should be prayed for ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all

Constitutional issues aside, by this logic the government should ban prayer for sick people. Of course that effect was not statistically significant, blah blah, I just thought it was funny. The real lesson from that study is that prayer has no effect one way or the other. It's purposeless from a medical care standpoint.

We all have our opinions 🙂

I agree somewhat with this quote from your article:

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

 

[Texashiker]

That case is not related to the discussion at hand.

Ninjahedge stated that if you hire people, you have to follow US labor laws.

The above link is a rebuttal to his statement.

There have been exceptions to certain laws based on religion. I suspect that when this birth control debate reaches the supreme court, churches will not be required to provide birth control for their employees.

 

[Ninjahedge]

No, not period.

Recently the supreme court ruled the first amendment precludes the application of federal employment-discrimination laws.

http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-Recognizes-a/130291/


This is another example of where a "right" overrides a "privilege".

Access to birth control pills is a privilege.

Practice of religion is a right.

Employment discrimination is different than employee rights.

Try to pick the right cases when you make an argument.

Period, semicolon, exclamation point.

 

[cybrsage]

The problem is simple.

Religions have no problem telling other people what to do, but site "freedom of religion" when it comes back their way.

They LOVE the tax-free status they are given, but somehow think that comes with no requirements or regulations.

The rule is simple. You lawfully hire someone working in the US, you have to follow US labor laws.

Period.

Does this mean the DNC would have to hire Tea Party supporters to work on their campaigns? Since it is illegal to discriminate against someone's political leaning in the workplace?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Ninjahedge stated that if you hire people, you have to follow US labor laws.

Please do not split hairs with me. You do not know what you are getting yourself into.

The above link is a rebuttal to his statement.

The above link was a rebuttal to a subset of a general argument that had no direct bearing on the original context of the topic being discussed.


You gotta keep things in context bubbie.

There have been exceptions to certain laws based on religion. I suspect that when this birth control debate reaches the supreme court, churches will not be required to provide birth control for their employees.

Unsubstantiated.

Now you are just posting opinion like it was fact. It has NOT happened and there is no proof of what you are postulating.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Does this mean the DNC would have to hire Tea Party supporters to work on their campaigns?

No, it does not. Because a persons position, especially in a political campaign, rests on who they support.

Since it is illegal to discriminate against someone's political leaning in the workplace?

Again, context.

 

[Texashiker]

Now you are just posting opinion like it was fact. It has NOT happened and there is no proof of what you are postulating.

It has happened, and I posted a link to case.

There have been exceptions made to laws based on religious beliefs.

You made a blanket statement, if you hire, you have to follow US labor laws. Well, that is not always true.

Please do not split hairs with me. You do not know what you are getting yourself into.

You just like to throw big words around to show everyone how "smart" you are.

Go home, open a beer, eat some pizza and watch some TV like everyone else.

 

[cybrsage]

No, it does not. Because a persons position, especially in a political campaign, rests on who they support.

So a religious organization can hire based on a person's religious views, correct? Since their position rests on it.

 

[Texashiker]

So a religious organization can hire based on a person's religious views, correct?

Yes and no.

Churches are free to pick and choose the church leaders based on their religious views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/u...o-job-discrimination-laws.html?pagewanted=all

churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

As for a non-leader position, I do not know if the church can hire and fire based on religious views.

 

[woolfe9999]

Shit is getting ridiculous.

The federal government is driving religious hospitals and charities out of business and then the liberals are bitching because there are not enough hospitals and charities.

The hypocrisy of a conservative making this argument is mind boggling. They're only being "driven out of business" if their decisions result in them losing government money. You're basically objecting to the government not continuing to prop them up. If they can't survive without government money, shouldn't they fail?

 

[Texashiker]

If they can't survive without government money, shouldn't they fail?

If you do not care about public health, then sure, let doctors go under.

My wife works for a doctor who serves an underprivileged area. If it was not for this doctor, people would have to travel about 100 miles to get service.

Just asked my wife the percentage of people the office sees who have private or government coverage - she told me about 70% of the people they see are under CHIPS, medicare and medicaid. The remaining 30% is split between no insurance and private insurance.

When the government cuts funding, it could affect up to 70% of the doctors patients.

For the good of the public, wouldn't it be better to continue to fund doctors? Maybe pay doctors in rural araes more then doctors who live in cities?

 

[fskimospy]

We all have our opinions 🙂

I agree somewhat with this quote from your article:

I just mean that it doesn't do anything from a medical standpoint. I believe that prayer could be quite beneficial to the mental and emotional state of the religious, etc, etc.

 

[woolfe9999]

If you do not care about public health, then sure, let doctors go under.

My wife works for a doctor who serves an underprivileged area. If it was not for this doctor, people would have to travel about 100 miles to get service.

Just asked my wife the percentage of people the office sees who have private or government coverage - she told me about 70% of the people they see are under CHIPS, medicare and medicaid. The remaining 30% is split between no insurance and private insurance.

When the government cuts funding, it could affect up to 70% of the doctors patients.

For the good of the public, wouldn't it be better to continue to fund doctors? Maybe pay doctors in rural araes more then doctors who live in cities?

I'm not really arguing for or against the points you've made above, but those points aren't exactly from a conservative ideological perspective. You'll notice my response was to Patranus who AFAIK is a pretty die hard conservative. Seems to me if you're truly conservative you don't think the government should support these hospitals to begin with so you shouldn't be complaining that they don't get their "government cheese."

 

[sactoking]

My comment is relevant to the discussion.

It seems that people are getting rights and privileges mixed up.

Freedom to practice a religion of your choice is a right.

Access to birth control is a privilege.

It is irrelevant because you're attempting to use a Bill of Rights argument to counter the legality of the regulation when the Bill of Rights isn't relevant. In this case the regulation isn't infringing upon anyone's right to practice their religion. The Catholic tenet in question is that birth control in any form is, for all intents and purposes, tantamount to murder so practicing Catholics should not use birth control. The regulation in question does not violate their rights to practice their religion by forcing them to use birth control themselves.

The Catholic tenet is question is not that birth control is wrong and that Catholics have a religious duty to prevent anyone from ever using birth control by any means necessary. If that were the tenet then you might argue that the regulation is a violation of their rights, but since the right would likely include forcing their will on others it might very well be disregarded as a right anyway.

No, not period.

Recently the supreme court ruled the first amendment precludes the application of federal employment-discrimination laws.

http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-Recognizes-a/130291/


This is another example of where a "right" overrides a "privilege".

Access to birth control pills is a privilege.

Practice of religion is a right.

Hey, you did a good job of poking a hole in an absolute argument by showing that "never" isn't actually never but you failed to further your goals in this discussion because the case cited is not relevant to the issue at hand.

 

[blackangst1]

I just mean that it doesn't do anything from a medical standpoint. I believe that prayer could be quite beneficial to the mental and emotional state of the religious, etc, etc.

Aside from true miracles, of course you're correct.

 

[Patranus]

All health insurance offered in the US should include all forms of birth control(pill, shot, implants, tubal ligation, and vesctomies. There is no valid reason why they shouldn't.

What HHS should have down was passed regulations on the insurance co's. Then the issue of church and state would have never come up.

Here is an idea.
You have various insurance companies offer different services and then we let them compete on the open market?

Novel concept I know....