Obama is anti-Catholic because he went to Harvard?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I fundamentally disagree. All sorts of churches are involved in outside activities, whether that be hospitals, retirement homes, schools, colleges, hotels, etc. The question is to what extent the operation of these outside activities have to comply with US law, particularly when that law applies to all and is not targeting a specific religion. What if complying with US law ran counter to fundamental beliefs of that church? The Mormon Church changed its view on multiple wives because the Courts would not exempt the Mormom Church from US law on multiple wives. We should draw a distinction between church and its directly religious activities and other outside activities. |
Anonymous
You definitely seem like an ardent old-skool Catholic. It's as though the Enlightenment never happened. Totally immune to logic or argument. |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
When the Supreme Court addressed the issue of ritualized use of peyote, Justice Scalia -- writing for the majority -- said this: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." That seems pretty clear. Religious belief is not superior to the law of the land. |
Anonymous
Oh that was a good one! Talk to the hand you old-skool Catholic. 
|
Anonymous
|
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
It's not a straw man; it's reductio ad absurdum. It's also a waste of time, because in what - 6 threads? - now, they've been sneaking past this argument, offered countless times in different forms by different people. |
Anonymous
|
First, you do not have to be an "ardent conservative Catholic" to understand that the "ministerial exception" that the Court recently held bars a church-school employee from suing her employer under anti-discrimination laws applies only where the employee is responsible for communicating the church's teachings. No one as far as I know has ever suggested that when a church enters into transactions wholly unrelated to the communication of its message (such as renting apartments to members of the public), the anti-discrimination laws are inapplicable.
Second, as I tried to explain on another thread, the Smith (peyote) case does not state the controlling law with regard to generally applicable laws that infringe on religious exercise. After Smith was decided, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which provides greater protection for religious practices than does the First Amendment as construed by Smith. Under RFRA, a federal law (such as the HHS mandate)that substantially burdens the exercise of religion cannot be so applied unless that law is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means available for furthering that interest. As President Obama, erstwhile lecturer in constitutional law, should have known, the HHS mandate in its original form would never have passed muster under RFRA. Providing women with free birth control is hardly a compelling governmental interest, since anybody who can afford a cell phone can afford birth control. And even if it were a compelling interest, requiring Catholic institutions to purchase insruance policies that cover birth control is quite obviously not the least restrictive way of accomplishing that objective. As the administration has now conceded, the government can just as easily make it possible for women to get free birth control without going through their Catholic employers. Whether the policy announced today violates RFRA, I haven't thought through, but that is the question interested people should be asking. |
Anonymous
Blah blah blah. Don't you people realize this was a negotiation between employers, insurers, and the White House? The White House wanted someone to pay. They couldn't get the insurance carriers to do it, so they tried to stick it to the employers. When that created a ruckus with the Catholic Church, they got the insurance carriers to bend. Problem solved, this is not about trying to ramrod churches. |
Anonymous
Seems like TheManWithAUserName, who individually has posted more in the various threads on this subject than nearly all pro-First Amendement posters combined, apparently chooses to ignore your reply, as this is not the first time you've posted it. I, however, have appreciated your well-written and thoughful response here and on the other threads. Thanks. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
What - I only get two hours? And you're complaining I post too much.
Yes it is, as far as I've seen. S/he mentioned only the RFRA part before - and I immediately responded. Continue pretending that everyone is as full of shit as you are. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
That's the whole point. The hospital isn't communicating the Church's message. That's why everyone keeps giving these hypotheticals. If you don't like PP's example, I'll give you all (yet another goddam) one: Church of White Supremacy. Unquestionably, its core principle is that blacks are inferior as employees and undeserving of medical treatment. They start a hospital, and naturally enough they don't want to hire blacks or treat them. How is it different? (That's right, martyrs: you have goaded me into typing this up again. You have won.)
I thought that was interesting, as I said in that thread. As I said there, it also looks like the RFRA precedents would give the Church little hope here. Note that that's really outside of the question most people seem to be arguing, whether the Church should be exempt.
You know that's not the only way to define the interest. It may come down to how the interest is defined, but you could just as easily say that the interest is to ensure that the large majority of people are comprehensively covered. You mentioned the Quaker/tax case before; why is the interest in getting the tiny amount of money that is one pacifist's tax contribution to the military so important? These lines between compelling and not are getting pretty fine. But you didn't do the other part of the analysis. How does this "substantially burden" the exercise? This is a pretty far cry from the peyote case in that regard. That's especially shaky given that, as I understand it, the Church is already operating under similar rules in 28 states. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
| One last note: it's hilarious that the non-Catholic Obama supporter is the one who finally addressed this argument, and yet the martyr is spiking the ball. |
Anonymous
| seriously, 3 posts in a row? does your wife not let you talk in the house? |
Anonymous
The RFRA is simply a statute. Later statutes can override RFRA, whether explicitly or implicitly. The mandate at issue derives its authority from a later statute. A court no doubt will try to interpret the later statute as consisent with the first, absent an explicity override. But that does not mean that, in this case, the mandate at hand violates RFRA. Personally, I happen to disagree with the mandate on health insurance policy grounds (should be insuring medical care targeted to medical conditions, not insuring life style choices). |
Anonymous
| obama is anti catholic because he's muslim. duh! |