Confusing arguments for contraception

[Pag_Hingowa]

Some Pro-RH Bill (Pro-choice) arguing that their reasons for supporting RH Bill are the following:

Freedom of Religion
Separation of the Church and the State
Free Will

They want these three items to be respective.

I don’t understand what made them tthink that these items are arguments for RH Bill (or contraception). I would appreciate if anyone could define Freedom of Religion, Separation of the Church and the State, and Free Will and tell me how those definitions are strong arguments for or against RH Bill/contraception.

If anyone can help with this one it will be appreciated. My Thanks in advance!

 

[Wardog]

Some Pro-RH Bill (Pro-choice) arguing that their reasons for supporting RH Bill are the following:

Freedom of Religion
Separation of the Church and the State
Free Will

They want these three items to be respective.

I don’t understand what made them tthink that these items are arguments for RH Bill (or contraception). I would appreciate if anyone could define Freedom of Religion, Separation of the Church and the State, and Free Will and tell me how those definitions are strong arguments for or against RH Bill/contraception.

If anyone can help with this one it will be appreciated. My Thanks in advance!

In my experience it seems that when people speak about Freedom of Religion, they are really speaking about Freedom from Religion. Generally they are the Human Secularists who are trying remove any sort of religious expression from a government sponsored or funded entity. Freedom of Religion in America is embodied in the FIrst Amendment which prohibits the federal government from establishing a national religion. It has become a tool of the secularists who are trying to remove any religion from the public sphere. Thus this prevents the use of any religious arguments from being used to suggest voting against this bill.

This leads into discussions of the Separation of the Church and State, which at its core is a realization that the Church has its sphere of action and the State has its own sphere, and the two should never intersect. Nowhere is this found in the Consitituion or in any legal documents. It is the justification for the Churchs’ tax exemption status, which is jeopardized whenever the preaching shifts from the Scriptures to politics. Since both scripture and politics effect people in their everyday life, there is a natural tension here. If one uses religious reasoning to advocate voting against this bill, there is a chance the tax exemption will be eliminated. One solution is for the Church to waive its tax exemption and speak out on all issues of the day.

Free Will is an acknowledgement that adult humans beings have the right to make decisions for themselves even if these are harmful to their bodies & souls. This is not always true, therefore the laws against drug use, prostitution and other vice crimes. People supporting this bill do not see the irony of their positions where they support abortion because of the woman’s inherent right to choose what to do with her own body, and their support of laws preventing those same women from selling or renting her body.

 

[choose_to_love]

@wardog

I do not think the charitable tax exemption is based upon either the establishment clause or the separation of church and state. It is based upon the recognition charities provide services that the government may very well have to provide if the charity does not. Charitable exemptions for churches have been around for a long time, and tying the exemption to a restriction on speech is a relatively recent innovation. I do not really think it is logical.

 

[thistle]

Some Pro-RH Bill (Pro-choice) arguing that their reasons for supporting RH Bill are the following:

Freedom of Religion
Separation of the Church and the State
Free Will

They want these three items to be respective.

I don’t understand what made them tthink that these items are arguments for RH Bill (or contraception). I would appreciate if anyone could define Freedom of Religion, Separation of the Church and the State, and Free Will and tell me how those definitions are strong arguments for or against RH Bill/contraception.

If anyone can help with this one it will be appreciated. My Thanks in advance!

Its very simple. If a politician is Catholic then he/she cannot support, promote, vote in favour of any laws on contraception. To do so means they are committing a grave sin, in fact a mortal sin because they know very well the Church teaching on this.
No amount of word games gets them off the hook.

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

In my experience it seems that when people speak about Freedom of Religion, they are really speaking about Freedom from Religion. Generally they are the Human Secularists who are trying remove any sort of religious expression from a government sponsored or funded entity. Freedom of Religion in America is embodied in the FIrst Amendment which prohibits the federal government from establishing a national religion. It has become a tool of the secularists who are trying to remove any religion from the public sphere. Thus this prevents the use of any religious arguments from being used to suggest voting against this bill.

It should be recalled that the era spanning from King Henry VIII’s time (1500s) to the years right before the First Amendment (late 1700s) England and, subsequently, America were plagued with religious wars. This actually followed the Age of Reformation. Whenever the state supports one religion, others clamor that theirs should be respected, thus spawning religious wars.

In the Philippines, this has also caused some problems (recall Father Damaso and the Hispanic era in our books in History). And as we look into the History of both England and America, along with the histories of other countries, we don’t want a repeat of what happened there.

Yes, the secular authorities has crossed this wall of separation. However, if we look into the context of RH Bill, this is supported by other Protestant Religions. Thus, this question should be asked: should we ultimately follow the Catholic Church or any single religion in deciding for this matter? He (Pro-RH) answered, “No.” He further said, “It is because if we do so, it would be to the detriment of the other religions. Thus, the decision we should make must be free from any religious influence. It should be noted that the principle of Separation of the Church and the State aptly applies if there is a conflict between 2 or more religions, or if any such conflict arises. In the case of some secular authorities crossing the line, they are merely lucky for no one ever complained. You should learn that for an act to be struck down as unconstitutional, there must be an actual controversy arising from a conflict between rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, among other requisites. In the case of some secular authorities violating the principle of Separation of the Church and the State, I repeat, there must have been no conflict or controversy at all.”

Could someone please point out the flaws in his argument?

This leads into discussions of the Separation of the Church and State, which at its core is a realization that the Church has its sphere of action and the State has its own sphere, and the two should never intersect. Nowhere is this found in the Consitituion or in any legal documents.

Buy Article II, Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution says:

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Is that a an argument for RH Bill (contraception) or argument against H Bill?

It is the justification for the Churchs’ tax exemption status, which is jeopardized whenever the preaching shifts from the Scriptures to politics. Since both scripture and politics effect people in their everyday life, there is a natural tension here. If one uses religious reasoning to advocate voting against this bill, there is a chance the tax exemption will be eliminated. One solution is for the Church to waive its tax exemption and speak out on all issues of the day.

He argued that there is not just a single religion. There are many others. There wouldn’t be any problem if there is only one religion.

Free Will is an acknowledgement that adult humans beings have the right to make decisions for themselves even if these are harmful to their bodies & souls. This is not always true, therefore the laws against drug use, prostitution and other vice crimes. People supporting this bill do not see the irony of their positions where they support abortion because of the woman’s inherent right to choose what to do with her own body, and their support of laws preventing those same women from selling or renting her body.

I know that contraception is harmful to souls and some artificial contraceptives are harmful to human bodies. But he argued that the government does not, in any way, prohibit Family Planning Methods (except for abortion). Thus, everyone is actually free to make use of them. Note that the drafts on RH Bill only provides for access to "full range to family planning methods.