Has anybody thought about what all of this anti-birth control laws/beliefs are really about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This




There is a difference between using religious beliefs to exempt yourself from the laws (e.g., we should be allowed to smoke peyote b/c of our religion; we should be able to have our kids work because of our religion) and the govt FORCING you to do something that is against your religious beliefs (e.g., distribute/pay for birth contol). In your analogy the govt is NOT ALLOWING individuals to do something, while with respect to the HHS mandate the govt is FORCING individuals to do something. So your analogy breaks down, at least under current first amendment jurisprudence.

So what about the interracial couple? See, in my religion, black people and white people shouldn't marry. Or converse. Or interact. So I simply will not allow black people in my hotel. If you don't like it, don't stay in my hotel. I mean, the gov't can't go FORCING me to rent rooms to black customers.

I don't think he/she can articulate a reason since they are many freedom of religion people who actually believe that they can discriminate based on the color of an individual's skin tone. Remember that was Bob Jones university's argument that the government could not force religious institutions to follow a law that was contrary to their religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is a difference between using religious beliefs to exempt yourself from the laws (e.g., we should be allowed to smoke peyote b/c of our religion; we should be able to have our kids work because of our religion) and the govt FORCING you to do something that is against your religious beliefs (e.g., distribute/pay for birth contol). In your analogy the govt is NOT ALLOWING individuals to do something, while with respect to the HHS mandate the govt is FORCING individuals to do something. So your analogy breaks down, at least under current first amendment jurisprudence.

>>>>>>>

What about muslim women who want the freedom to go through security in burqas? Wnat their face to be covered in driver's license photos. Don't want to unveil when they testify in court. It's part of their religion. We are forcing them to show us their faces. Do you think they should be free to be veiled always?

Of course the government should make them take off those damn burqas. They aren't Christians. They are Muslims dammit and not entitled to the same religious exemptions as us worthy Christians. How dare you compare them to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This arguement has nothing to do with contraception.. Its a religious rights issue. If you want free BC dont work for a catholic organization. Done

If you're a black man married to a white woman, don't check into a racist hotel. Religious rights, people.

My religion believes children should go to work in factories when they are 8 years old. If you don't like it, don't send YOUR 8 year old children to work in a factory. Religious rights, folks.

This is just dumb, and it just makes you look like a douchebag.

But... but... it is our deeply held religious belief, that children should work alongside their parents in the factories. We're not asking YOU to put YOUR kids in factories, just saying that the government needs to respect OUR right to live by our beliefs.

See how it works? Religious freedom trumps everything else the country may think is important.

There is a difference between using religious beliefs to exempt yourself from the laws (e.g., we should be allowed to smoke peyote b/c of our religion; we should be able to have our kids work because of our religion) and the govt FORCING you to do something that is against your religious beliefs (e.g., distribute/pay for birth contol). In your analogy the govt is NOT ALLOWING individuals to do something, while with respect to the HHS mandate the govt is FORCING individuals to do something. So your analogy breaks down, at least under current first amendment jurisprudence.

So what about the interracial couple? See, in my religion, black people and white people shouldn't marry. Or converse. Or interact. So I simply will not allow black people in my hotel. If you don't like it, don't stay in my hotel. I mean, the gov't can't go FORCING me to rent rooms to black customers.

Here's the problem with your analogy. Our constitution protects freedom of religion and guarantees equal protection under the law (which is why you can't discriminate against the black guest under our the Civil Rights Act). However, our constitution does not guarantee universal health care (and it certainly doesn't guarantee birth control). I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but it's the reality. And I'm pretty sure our current Supreme Court would agree. The bottom line is not that freedom of religion trumps all; but the bottom line is that it trumps a lot unless there's a countervailing, fundamental constitutional right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics believe in the sanctity and dignity of all human life. They oppose the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, war, and abortion (including the use of contraceptives like the morning-after pill). Their position on abortion is consistent with their other views -- it has to do with the dignity of human life, not keeping women in their place. Abortion is the #1 issue for many Catholics because there are so many abortions every year. Many Catholics see it as genocide.

That's a crock. They found an exception that allows the death penalty. Many in the Church support the death penalty. They excommunicated Father Roy. They transferred priests allowing children to be raped and priests unpunished. The bishops are some of the most right-wing crazies around. Let's not forget how much PUBLIC money they get, and we can't say anything about how they use it? This mostly effects poor women--how many choices do people really have? Find someone else to work for? How easy is that in this economy, exactly?

I'm not talking about the leaders of the Catholic church or individual Catholics. I'm talking about Catholic social teaching. And what's the exception that allows the death penalty?

Sure, okay. BUT even Catholics don't follow their rules and teachings and that's a fact, not all I'm sure, but many. So why do those of us who practice another religion, or don't practice a religionat all, be subjected to your teachings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is a difference between using religious beliefs to exempt yourself from the laws (e.g., we should be allowed to smoke peyote b/c of our religion; we should be able to have our kids work because of our religion) and the govt FORCING you to do something that is against your religious beliefs (e.g., distribute/pay for birth contol). In your analogy the govt is NOT ALLOWING individuals to do something, while with respect to the HHS mandate the govt is FORCING individuals to do something. So your analogy breaks down, at least under current first amendment jurisprudence.

>>>>>>>

What about muslim women who want the freedom to go through security in burqas? Wnat their face to be covered in driver's license photos. Don't want to unveil when they testify in court. It's part of their religion. We are forcing them to show us their faces. Do you think they should be free to be veiled always?

Of course the government should make them take off those damn burqas. They aren't Christians. They are Muslims dammit and not entitled to the same religious exemptions as us worthy Christians. How dare you compare them to us.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your freedom, religious or otherwise, ends where someone else's freedom begins.

You are free to not take birth control as a matter of conscience. The govt can't force you to take it.

You are not free to interefere with the birth control choices of others. Cherry picking what is and is not offered as a matter of health care is de facto interfering with those choices.

When one individual is put in a position of power over another - say in a workplace - we cannot allow the more powerful individual to allow their religion to interfere in the freedoms of their employees.

You are free to persuade, bemoan, preach, and otherwise try to convince people that your birth control stance is the correct one. Thus ensuring that, due to the rightness of your argument, that no one will actually consume said BC offered on the plan.

Thank you, PP. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics believe in the sanctity and dignity of all human life. They oppose the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, war, and abortion (including the use of contraceptives like the morning-after pill). Their position on abortion is consistent with their other views -- it has to do with the dignity of human life, not keeping women in their place. Abortion is the #1 issue for many Catholics because there are so many abortions every year. Many Catholics see it as genocide.

That's a crock. They found an exception that allows the death penalty. Many in the Church support the death penalty. They excommunicated Father Roy. They transferred priests allowing children to be raped and priests unpunished. The bishops are some of the most right-wing crazies around. Let's not forget how much PUBLIC money they get, and we can't say anything about how they use it? This mostly effects poor women--how many choices do people really have? Find someone else to work for? How easy is that in this economy, exactly?

I'm not talking about the leaders of the Catholic church or individual Catholics. I'm talking about Catholic social teaching. And what's the exception that allows the death penalty?

Sure, okay. BUT even Catholics don't follow their rules and teachings and that's a fact, not all I'm sure, but many. So why do those of us who practice another religion, or don't practice a religionat all, be subjected to your teachings?

You don't. Just don't work for our institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your freedom, religious or otherwise, ends where someone else's freedom begins.

You are free to not take birth control as a matter of conscience. The govt can't force you to take it.

You are not free to interefere with the birth control choices of others. Cherry picking what is and is not offered as a matter of health care is de facto interfering with those choices.

When one individual is put in a position of power over another - say in a workplace - we cannot allow the more powerful individual to allow their religion to interfere in the freedoms of their employees.

You are free to persuade, bemoan, preach, and otherwise try to convince people that your birth control stance is the correct one. Thus ensuring that, due to the rightness of your argument, that no one will actually consume said BC offered on the plan.

Thank you, PP. Why is this so hard to understand?

The problem with your argument is that it has no basis in the law. People can argue all they want about what's right and wrong. Ultimately, though, this is a legal decision, and the law is not on your side. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics believe in the sanctity and dignity of all human life. They oppose the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, war, and abortion (including the use of contraceptives like the morning-after pill). Their position on abortion is consistent with their other views -- it has to do with the dignity of human life, not keeping women in their place. Abortion is the #1 issue for many Catholics because there are so many abortions every year. Many Catholics see it as genocide.

That's a crock. They found an exception that allows the death penalty. Many in the Church support the death penalty. They excommunicated Father Roy. They transferred priests allowing children to be raped and priests unpunished. The bishops are some of the most right-wing crazies around. Let's not forget how much PUBLIC money they get, and we can't say anything about how they use it? This mostly effects poor women--how many choices do people really have? Find someone else to work for? How easy is that in this economy, exactly?

I'm not talking about the leaders of the Catholic church or individual Catholics. I'm talking about Catholic social teaching. And what's the exception that allows the death penalty?

Sure, okay. BUT even Catholics don't follow their rules and teachings and that's a fact, not all I'm sure, but many. So why do those of us who practice another religion, or don't practice a religionat all, be subjected to your teachings?

You don't. Just don't work for our institutions.

Fine. And your institutions can give up all their tax breaks and public assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics believe in the sanctity and dignity of all human life. They oppose the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, war, and abortion (including the use of contraceptives like the morning-after pill). Their position on abortion is consistent with their other views -- it has to do with the dignity of human life, not keeping women in their place. Abortion is the #1 issue for many Catholics because there are so many abortions every year. Many Catholics see it as genocide.

That's a crock. They found an exception that allows the death penalty. Many in the Church support the death penalty. They excommunicated Father Roy. They transferred priests allowing children to be raped and priests unpunished. The bishops are some of the most right-wing crazies around. Let's not forget how much PUBLIC money they get, and we can't say anything about how they use it? This mostly effects poor women--how many choices do people really have? Find someone else to work for? How easy is that in this economy, exactly?

I'm not talking about the leaders of the Catholic church or individual Catholics. I'm talking about Catholic social teaching. And what's the exception that allows the death penalty?

Sure, okay. BUT even Catholics don't follow their rules and teachings and that's a fact, not all I'm sure, but many. So why do those of us who practice another religion, or don't practice a religionat all, be subjected to your teachings?

You don't. Just don't work for our institutions.

In essence this war on women does affect us ALL in every state, driven by the religious right. So we just can't get away from you. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics believe in the sanctity and dignity of all human life. They oppose the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, war, and abortion (including the use of contraceptives like the morning-after pill). Their position on abortion is consistent with their other views -- it has to do with the dignity of human life, not keeping women in their place. Abortion is the #1 issue for many Catholics because there are so many abortions every year. Many Catholics see it as genocide.

That's a crock. They found an exception that allows the death penalty. Many in the Church support the death penalty. They excommunicated Father Roy. They transferred priests allowing children to be raped and priests unpunished. The bishops are some of the most right-wing crazies around. Let's not forget how much PUBLIC money they get, and we can't say anything about how they use it? This mostly effects poor women--how many choices do people really have? Find someone else to work for? How easy is that in this economy, exactly?

I'm not talking about the leaders of the Catholic church or individual Catholics. I'm talking about Catholic social teaching. And what's the exception that allows the death penalty?

Sure, okay. BUT even Catholics don't follow their rules and teachings and that's a fact, not all I'm sure, but many. So why do those of us who practice another religion, or don't practice a religionat all, be subjected to your teachings?

You don't. Just don't work for our institutions.

Fine. And your institutions can give up all their tax breaks and public assistance.

Preach!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's about total control over women and their reproductive rights. It's nasty and disgusting.

Here's a twisted idea.
I think if you can't get an erection and have sex, that means God doesn't want you to procreate and have sex. I would like to ban production of Viagra and similar medication, because it's my belief God is against the use of this "artificial" means to getting an erection.

Off the wall crazy, yes. So are these nutjobs.

Who is talking about banning birth control? Almost no one. Even crazy Santorum is talking about whether those who object should have to pay for it.

Sorry, but that is where we are heading with some of these fanatics.....
I would never in a million years would have thought, that in 2012 we would be dealing with the issues we are dealing with now when it comes to woman and reproductive health.

+1 -- Sometimes I have to remind myself this is the 21st century.

[Anonymous]

Here's what I don't get. Up until now these religious institutions have not been covering birth control/morning after pill in their health plans. Moreover, religious hospitals like Georgetown wouldn't perform vasectomies, insert IUDs, etc. It's been that way forever. So why do people think that if the bishops get there exception that equates to a war on women? They just want to keep the status quo. If the status quo was that bad, why wasn't there an outcry before the bishops objected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get. Up until now these religious institutions have not been covering birth control/morning after pill in their health plans. Moreover, religious hospitals like Georgetown wouldn't perform vasectomies, insert IUDs, etc. It's been that way forever. So why do people think that if the bishops get there exception that equates to a war on women? They just want to keep the status quo. If the status quo was that bad, why wasn't there an outcry before the bishops objected?

Obviously I meant "their exception"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics believe in the sanctity and dignity of all human life. They oppose the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, war, and abortion (including the use of contraceptives like the morning-after pill). Their position on abortion is consistent with their other views -- it has to do with the dignity of human life, not keeping women in their place. Abortion is the #1 issue for many Catholics because there are so many abortions every year. Many Catholics see it as genocide.

That's a crock. They found an exception that allows the death penalty. Many in the Church support the death penalty. They excommunicated Father Roy. They transferred priests allowing children to be raped and priests unpunished. The bishops are some of the most right-wing crazies around. Let's not forget how much PUBLIC money they get, and we can't say anything about how they use it? This mostly effects poor women--how many choices do people really have? Find someone else to work for? How easy is that in this economy, exactly?

I'm not talking about the leaders of the Catholic church or individual Catholics. I'm talking about Catholic social teaching. And what's the exception that allows the death penalty?

Sure, okay. BUT even Catholics don't follow their rules and teachings and that's a fact, not all I'm sure, but many. So why do those of us who practice another religion, or don't practice a religionat all, be subjected to your teachings?

You don't. Just don't work for our institutions.

Fine. And your institutions can give up all their tax breaks and public assistance.

D

Preach!

Do you really want all Catholic schools, hospitals, social welfare organizations, etc. to shut down? I doubt it. The bishops will not give on this one. Obama will give or the Supreme Court will tell him he has to.