Reply to I guess you only get to "choose" when you agree with this administration

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "I guess you only get to "choose" when you agree with this administration"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=TheManWithAUsername][quote=Anonymous]In response to 8:32, the belief that life starts at conception and that birth control is immoral is a fundamental and basic belief in the Catholic Church.[/quote]
Someone else said that, but declined to define "fundamental." I would think that we could come up with many beliefs more basic to Catholicism than this one. I think "fundamental" is just an easy word.

[quote=Anonymous]I don't agree that birth control is immoral. I am pro choice. But the US government has no business forcing the Church to go against it's conscience. Religious freedom and separation of church and state are basic tenets of American society. These two things PROTECT everyone's freedom of conscience. To me, my religious freedom is more important than my ability to get birth control from my Catholic employer. It's a slippery slope. We're losing the forest for the trees. Birth control is just one issue. It's an issue you happen to agree with- you happen to agree that Catholic institutions should provide birth control, even those that the Church considers akin to abortion and therefore goes against the church's basic and most central beliefs. What happens when the government inserts itself into religion in a way that you don't agree with? In a way that threatens you or your beliefs? Similarly the government should not force a Muslim institution, or example, to allow alcohol to be purchased on it's premises. I disagree with France's banning of the burqa. As a matter of principle the government should stay out of religion. Yes, religious institutions discriminate based on sex. Yet another thing I disagree with. But do you seriously think it's the government's role to force the Catholic church to hire women priests? You would not see that as a total overreach of government power? Because once you give the government that power you have to be willing to accept it's intrusion into religion or it's forcing of religious mandates in a way you disagree with as well as agree with. [/quote]
You referred to my post with the question about real and hypothetical religious issues, but you haven't responded to it. Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

[quote=Anonymous]But do you seriously think it's the government's role to force the Catholic church to hire women priests?[/quote]
I have many more opinions about government and religion, but I'm restricting myself to the framework of our 1st Amendment and its ethics. In that context, I don't think we should. That's obviously not what we're discussing.

You think that the government shouldn't tell the Church what to do with its hospital employees. OK, then: Should all Church hospitals be exempt from employment discrimination laws...wage/hour laws...medical licensing laws?

Those aren't "fundamental" issues, you may say. OK: imagine a hypothetical religion which is fundamentally white supremacist. By your reasoning, it should be able to run a hospital, hotel, whatever that only employs and serves whites.

If you think that, then I suppose we just have a basic disagreement. If you don't think the white supremacists should be excepted you'll have to explain the difference.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics