[excon]

I can see nothing else for it religious organisations must employ only those people who adhere to their principles and practices

Hello clete:

OR, the workers who AREN'T Catholic will have the Catholic religion FORCED upon them... Tell me HOW that's religious freedom??

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello clete:

OR, the workers who AREN'T Catholic will have the Catholic religion FORCED upon them.... Tell me HOW that's religious freedom???

excon

You find me one instance of that and then we can talk.

[excon]

You find me one instance of that and then we can talk.

Hello again, Steve:

Isn't the whole thread ABOUT the Catholic church REFUSING to provide insurance that will cover contraceptives?? Their employee's CAN'T get them BECAUSE the religious beliefs of the church PREVENT it...

If that's NOT the Catholic religion being FORCED down the throats of their NON Catholic employees, then I don't know what is..

excon

[speechlesstx]

Oh come on, when did you become such a drama queen? It's simple, they don't have to work there and they can buy all the contraceptives they want. There is no policy in place forbidding employees from using contraceptives. NOT Paying for birth control pills is not forcing your religion down someone's throat.

[talaniman]

When the church employs private companies that are regulated by law, they have to obey. If they employ private citizens, as workers, they must comply with the labor laws. Insurances must obey the LAW, it's that simple. So it seems to me that the solution between conscience and law is to not employ insurance companies OR private citizens. Indeed the decision is the churches, to modify their religion to comply with the law, or take the steps to be exempt from it.

I gave my examples before of how other religions, Mormons, and Muslims, being kept from following THEIR religion to the letter of THEIR convictions, so expect ALL religions to respect the LAWS of the land. Now you can be against a mandate to what's allowable under the LAW, but the mandate that has been taken up by the bishops clearly gives them all the choices they need to both practice freely under the LAW, for the good of ALL the citizens.

Now since there is an exemption that lets them off the hook, for PAYING for things they don't believe in, then the only argument is with dealing with private companies that do offer things they preach against. They won't have to stop that, nor stop their charity, nor stop the rights of others from having access to health care. Some will choose to do what the church tells them, some will not. and that's no

We all win, and are not harmed so its between the church and insurance companies how they get there. Sorry but no way do I see the rights of the church being more important than my rights, even if I sweep the halls for pay, maintain church property, or do the books. I mean the church purchases all kinds of services for private people and pay for those services, be it practicing good Catholics or a Muslim small business man right? Insurance is no different, and the only things that limit the practice of its religion by the church is the church itself when it makes a choice to be an employer or insurance company. Both things regulated by LAW!!

[speechlesstx]

Tal, if the church is forced in any way to be a party to furnishing birth control or abortifacients, we lose religious freedom. Some churches are self-insured, where is their escape clause?

And the bigger issue anyway is what I pointed out earlier, this gives the federal government the power to define what constitutes a ministry and what doesn't.

[talaniman]

But Steve, that's my point, they are already a party to firnishing birth control, and abortifacients. Have been for decades. Under state law. Look it up, its true, now it's the same under federal law, but nothing has changed at all except federal law.

The state laws has been to court over this, and was upheld. The federal law is the same, and even more favorable for the churches, but changes nothing that's been done over the last 20 years.

Seems your arguments is based more on your perception than reality. And I don't agree that the government is defining a ministry, just saying if you act like a private company, you will be treated like one. You seem to think the church can do business any way they want in the name of their religion. They cannot, that's why all ministries, and businesses, and companies have to be clear as to what they are and what they are taxed, and regulated by.

Or else the rights of the individual will mean nothing, if indeed there is a law for you, that doesn't apply to me. No church, religion, or company in this country is above the LAW! Or shouldn't be. The government doesn't define a ministry, the ministry defines itself, but all actions in the public sector be they charity, church, non profit, or for profit MUST be defined for tax purpose.

You can always do what some have done, moved to their own land, made their own rules, and enforce them themselves. Sorry Steve, but the church has already cosen the path they take, preach, but not prosecute, and forgive those who are flawed. They have choices, and options, and the opportunity to practice what they believe without screwing those that don't.

Maybe its not as perfect as we want, but it's the way it is, and that's equal, and fair treatment under the LAW! That's the goal at least.

[speechlesstx]

Tal, I'll have to find the text again but it does define what counts as religious and what doesn't. It's basically if doesn't specifically matters of faith/doctrine they don't consider it religious. That's the whole point of the post I just linked, ministry is helping people. If helping people is no longer a religious activity then the church is effectively done in the feds eyes.

[excon]

this gives the federal government the power to define what constitutes a ministry and what doesn't.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... The APPLICATION for tax exempt status GAVE them that power a long long time ago.

excon

[tomder55]

They should get the same exemption to opt out of Obamacare that the unions and Obama cronies gets one would think.

Look ;what is really scary about this is that the Obamacare law is chock full of language that gives power and authority to the head of HHS to make similar type decisions. We isn't seen nothing yet. There is no doubt that if they get away with this then mandatory coverage for "free " abortion won't be far behind . If they can force a Catholic Hospital to give coverage for something morally objectionable then what's to stop them from mandating that they perform a medical procedure . What ? You think that can't happen ? They already force Pharmacists to sell abortifacients or lose the privilege of being licensed to do their job.

Tal ,I don't care if all 50 states mandate it (or is it 57 states ) . This is Federal Law and the Constitution is clear about Federal law .

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

[talaniman]

Pharmacists and the "duty" to dispense emergency contraceptives | Issues in Law & Medicine | Find Articles

It's a long read but hits the good points.

[speechlesstx]

Here it is, Obama redefining religion:

Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)

So let's get this straight, The One gets up and preaches his gospel that "I am my brother's keeper". He then announces a rule that narrowly redefines what qualifies as religious.

(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose

Gone, feeding the hungry. Gone, caring for the sick. Gone, clothing the naked. Gone, sheltering the homeless. Gone, furnishing safe harbor to abused women and children. Gone, prisoner re-entry programs. Gone, gone, gone.

(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets

Gone, any employer that isn't a house of worship.

(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets

See above. The church is no longer to supposed to help others regardless of who they are or what they believe? We're either supposed to discriminate or violate our conscience? Are you kidding me? And for what, a cure in search of a disease?

This is a dangerous precedent being set here and I'll repeat, if you value your cherished rights you'll join me in protecting religious freedom.

[paraclete]

speech, you are running a strawman argument.

You are defining religion as something that does not engage in human charity, yet these values are ensconced in religion, at least in christian religion which holds that looking after the needy is true religion..
I can hold religious views without attending a church or being a card carrying member of a demonination and I see nowhere a requirement to ascertain a persons religious views before helping them

[tomder55]

Speech didn't write the code . It is Obama who says that a religious organization is one that primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
When you include missions it is possible that Catholic affiliated organizations serve more outside the flock.

[speechlesstx]

Ain't no straw man there, Clete.

[talaniman]

You guys should let the pope speak for himself, but as the President he set a policy debate that has a year to go before its the law. So be glad we at least have the debate. You say he is wrong, I say he is NOT!! What's clear is we have to define what everyone is entitled to and make a law that sets the boundaries and consequences for what we can do, and don't do! That's just The American Way, and you may think your God comes first, which I can agree with, that doesn't mean I should/or you suffer under the beliefs of people, or the way they interpret what their GOD tells them to do.

That means any nut job can justify whatever they do, right or wrong, and do so in the name of serving their GOD. That's what NOT having a definition brings you, and there are thousands of years of history to say that's so! That's the problem now, as has always been when we put the right of instituitions over the rights of people, and its great when it works, and makes second class subjects of those that have no way to overcome the whims, agendas and motives, of those who would have powers over others.

I can respect you guys views and fears, but just do not agree with the way you frame things because, I doubt the right, or the left is a majority, but in the end we have to at least have a consensus that's fair to MOST of us.

Why can't we meet in the middle, and give some to get some, until we can have a law that we can live under? The real beauty of freedom of religion, is no church can dictate to any citizen how they practice their religion, and no church can penalize any citizen who doesn't do as they are told. Even when they leave the church, and walk among the citizens.

There has to be a definition for there to be a law, or the few will surely screw the many, just because they can. Just an observation though, the churches seem to be doing quite well under the law, and I don't see that changing by any definitions, or laws at this time or the near future.

Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?

Absolutely not!!

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3029627]Here it is, Obama redefining religion:



So let's get this straight, The One gets up and preaches his gospel that "I am my brother's keeper". He then announces a rule that narrowly redefines what qualifies as religious.
[I]


Hi Steve,


Unfortunately I think the Constitution is going to end up backing you in a corner. Alternative, it will force people to hold a contradictory position.
Anyway that's what I see happening.

The legislation, or proposed legislation you quote has elements of legal fiction contained within. The Obama administration seems to be inspired by the nonsensical and ridiculous idea of 'corporate personhood'

Basically what I am saying is that you can't support the idea of 'corporate person' and how it relates to the other admendments while at the same time rejecting the Obama inspired version of 'personhood' as it relates to religion.

You can, but you would be holding a contradictory position.

Tut

P.S. Before someone jumps in and accuses me of saying the constitution is legal fiction.

No.. I said 'personhood' is legal fiction. I DIDN'T say the Constitution is legal fiction.

[paraclete]

speech didn't write the code . It is Obama who says that a religous organization is one that primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
When you include missions it is possible that Catholic affiliated organizations serve more outside the flock.

It may be that some churches have strong social programs and government would have greater expenditure if it were it were not for such church programs and so who ever holds these views is a strawman.
If it is Obama then I could suggest he is no Christian whatever his protest might be. There is a facility for making clear that the writer is quoting someone else

[speechlesstx]

[QUOTE=TUT317;3030166]

Here it is, Obama redefining religion:



So let's get this straight, The One gets up and preaches his gospel that "I am my brother's keeper". He then announces a rule that narrowly redefines what qualifies as religious.
[I]


Hi Steve,


Unfortunately I think the Constitution is going to end up backing you in a corner. Alternative, it will force people to hold a contradictory position.
Anyway that's what I see happening.

The legislation, or proposed legislation you quote has elements of legal fiction contained within. The Obama administration seems to be inspired by the nonsensical and ridiculous idea of 'corporate personhood'

Basically what I am saying is that you can't support the idea of 'corporate person' and how it relates to the other admendments while at the same time rejecting the Obama inspired version of 'personhood' as it relates to religion.

You can, but you would be holding a contradictory position.

Tut

P.S. Before someone jumps in and accuses me of saying the constitution is legal fiction.

No.. I said 'personhood' is legal fiction. I DIDN'T say the Constitution is legal fiction.

Ni Tut,

No offense but you're going to have to speak in plain English for me. All I know is religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment, free birth control is not.

Whether that's the 'corporate body' as the church and its extended ministries or the individual matters not in my view. He is narrowly defining what qualifies as religious to those things generally found in houses of worship; faith, common beliefs, teaching and evangelism, etc. in order to disqualify service to the community as legitimate religious activity and burden the church to violate its beliefs or get out of the business of helping others. This is illegal, hypocritical and violates our rights.

[excon]

Whether that's the 'corporate body' as the church and its extended ministries or the individual matters not in my view.

Hello again, Steve:

If you'd STOP using right wing PC, you'd SEE how ridiculous your statement sounds... A hospital is NOT a ministry... I've been to a "ministry" before. A hospital ain't one.

excon