Does freedom of religion include forcing your religious beliefs on others?

  • Thread starter Thread starter interestedman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rence said:
But a lot of those people aren’t atheists…many are Christians. :confused:
Click to expand...
Wrong, a lot are atheists. Why would Christians promote propaganda against their own Church? Doig so, doednt make them a Christian.
 
_Abyssinia said:
But what about all the others I listed that are exempted for non religious reasons? Is it fair that they get an exception, but religious liberty is not held to enough importance by Obama that those who do not want to pay for morally objectionable drugs are forced to pay them?
Click to expand...
I already said I didn’t know anything about them. What makes them unique? Do you know anything about them or do you just know they are exempt and that’s it? It seems to me that if one has a problem with this mandate, they would research how these other companies are exempt and apply for an exemption.

Nobody’s religious liberty is being violated by this mandate. The insurance companies themselves are offering the insurance benefits, and they were made standard across the board. So the decision and responsibility was removed from the employers. They have nothing to do with it. If people are so opposed to this mandate on the grounds of religion, then why are they still paying their taxes, which pay for the same services? Why is this mandate such a problem but the ABCs their already paying for when they pay their taxes is not a problem? I don’t see a difference in the two.
 
interestedman said:
If you don’t provide birth control to your employees because of your religious beliefs, and 100% of your employees don’t have the same religious beliefs as yourself, you are forcing your religious beliefs on them. So does freedom of religion extend to forcing your religious morals on others? If a bunch of people work for me is it right for me to make them conform to my religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
How does not providing medication used to suppress fertility imposing one’s religion on another?
 
Rence said:
I already said I didn’t know anything about them. What makes them unique? Do you know anything about them or do you just know they are exempt and that’s it? It seems to me that if one has a problem with this mandate, they would research how these other companies are exempt and apply for an exemption.

Nobody’s religious liberty is being violated by this mandate. The insurance companies themselves are offering the insurance benefits, and they were made standard across the board. So the decision and responsibility was removed from the employers. They have nothing to do with it. If people are so opposed to this mandate on the grounds of religion, then why are they still paying their taxes, which pay for the same services? Why is this mandate such a problem but the ABCs their already paying for when they pay their taxes is not a problem? I don’t see a difference in the two.
Click to expand...
Again, your take is different from the bishops’

Nice to see the Obama admin talking points, though. “Through an accounting shell game, you don’t have to pay for these services directly”
 
Rence said:
I don’t know anything about Christian Care ministry, but I do know that the Amish are independent and don’t pay taxes because they don’t use any government funded resources. They are self sufficient and their funding is raised by the community. Catholics could do this too. If they did this too, then they wouldn’t have to worry about paying taxes or any mandates like this.
Click to expand...
I see them on the highway sometimes.
 
Rence said:
I already said I didn’t know anything about them. What makes them unique? Do you know anything about them or do you just know they are exempt and that’s it? It seems to me that if one has a problem with this mandate, they would research how these other companies are exempt and apply for an exemption.

Nobody’s religious liberty is being violated by this mandate. The insurance companies themselves are offering the insurance benefits, and they were made standard across the board. So the decision and responsibility was removed from the employers. They have nothing to do with it. If people are so opposed to this mandate on the grounds of religion, then why are they still paying their taxes, which pay for the same services? Why is this mandate such a problem but the ABCs their already paying for when they pay their taxes is not a problem? I don’t see a difference in the two.
Click to expand...
Obama admin does not give an exception to anybody other than is already in the law or who they want to like their friend unions. You can not apply for an exemption except by pursuing a lawsuit.

Insurance companies are offering the services and employers have to pay for the services. Nothing changed in Obama’s non accommodation. Charge for sterilisation, contraception, abortifacients will be added to the premium everybody has to pay. Peoples religious liberty is being violated, I am shocked you can not recognise that.

Mark Shea has a blog post on why Catholics paying taxes even though the money can go to pay unjust wars, contraception etc is not the same to pay through HHS
Because with taxes, the State, though it may mishandle money, nonethless has a legitimate role in providing for the common good that outweighs the inefficiency and corruption that often accompanies government. So Paul, for instance, urges, the Romans to pay their taxes – even when the Emperor is Nero (Romans 13). But the HHS mandate is not taking from a fungible pool of tax dollars providing for the common good and spending it badly. Rather, it is ordering – targeting, really – Catholic institutions and commanding them to do something specifically repugnant to their conscience and threatening to destroy them financially and legally if they do not comply. The entire and sole point of the HHS Mandate is to make open and naked war against the Church and punish her for her beliefs about sexual morality. The Church has a duty to resist such an act of war against her teaching.
Click to expand...
ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-hhs-mandate-and-unjust-war

If the court thought paying for what is thought to be morally objectionable drugs by Hercules Industries is like paying taxes and those taxes going to those services then I doubt they would of won
 
Rence said:
Yeah, I know…because we’re coming from two different perspectives.
Click to expand...
Your perspective, then, is: anything not specifically provided forces a certain behavior which does not permit that which is not provided?
 
10gr8kids said:
You really think someone should be forced to buy something they believe is immoral for someone else or they are being coercive.
Click to expand...
Are these people being forced to go out and buy the birth control for their employees? It is part of their health plan. It is completely different.
 
No one pays for my Nexium as a preventative health care measure.
 
fix said:
Or healthcare in any authentic sense of the term?
Click to expand...
Healthcare is a right, and nobody is denied treatment based on the ability to pay.

What isn’t a right is health insurance.
 
interestedman said:
Are these people being forced to go out and buy the birth control for their employees? It is part of their health plan. It is completely different.
Click to expand...
Since when is health insurance free? If I want maternity included in my health plan my rates go up. Whenever I add any extra coverage to any of my insurance plans the rate goes up. Does anyone really believe that insurance companies are going to add extra benefits and nobody is going to have to pay for it?
 
interestedman said:
Are these people being forced to go out and buy the birth control for their employees? It is part of their health plan. It is completely different.
Click to expand...
Yes. Many of the Catholic organizations self insure. They pay for the coverage, and therefore the drugs.

Did any Catholic institution deny an employee birth control, or just to pay for it?

Why do I continue to tilt at strawmen?
 
Is it true that if you liked your health care plan you could keep it except if you were a religious organization?
 
scipio337 said:
Yes. Many of the Catholic organizations self insure. They pay for the coverage, and therefore the drugs.

Did any Catholic institution deny an employee birth control, or just to pay for it?

Why do I continue to tilt at strawmen?
Click to expand...
Most employees also contribute and pay for part of their health insurance. It’s not like most Catholic or even non-Catholic institutions pay for it all. So it’s not untrue to say that the employee is paying for it.
 
scipio337 said:
Healthcare is a right, and nobody is denied treatment based on the ability to pay.

What isn’t a right is health insurance.
Click to expand...
Medication used strictly as contraception is not treating any medical condition nor is it preventing any pathology. It may be used in a healthcare setting, but it is not treating any medical condition. It is recreation not healthcare, no matter how it is paid for.
 
Rence said:
Most employees also contribute and pay for part of their health insurance. It’s not like most Catholic or even non-Catholic institutions pay for it all. So it’s not untrue to say that the employee is paying for it.
Click to expand...
The employer is paying a portion of it. See “Immediate Material Cooperation”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top