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

[mark_a]

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?

This is just the beginning.

This same bunch of people will feel the opposite about their employer who refuses to pay for euthanasia.

 

[iloveangels]

…Why on earth didn’t Obama just provide vouchers for these women who work for these ‘religious’ based employers? They could turn in the vouchers to the government or to the insurance company directly for a separate rider. The employer wouldn’t know about it, those who wanted the benefit would get it, and life would go on.

The point has occasionally been brought up, Rence. This action wouldn’t play into
a) his re-election hopes. He hopes that by attacking someone, he can obtain votes. It’s the ultimate in negative campaigning.
b) his general attitude of hostility towards those who don’t share his views.

We were just talking about this out on facebook. American society has become very combatitive, belligerent and unpleasant lately, I mean more than normal. Everyone is fighting over everything and fighting itself is getting to be more important than what they’re fighting over. People are just antagonizing each other. It’s like watching a bunch of kids, honestly, no offense to kids. It’s bad.

 

[iloveangels]

This is just the beginning.

This same bunch of people will feel the opposite about their employer who refuses to pay for euthanasia.

I hope that isn’t going to happen, Mark, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility that it might. In which case, Catholics had better stop blabbering all kinds of things and think about these things CAREFULLY, which I don’t believe has really happened yet.

 

[iloveangels]

This is also completely complicated with the Catholic health care issues, aka the hospitals and other services that we run that have been involved with the CRS, CHA and all that. This also needs a critical and strict review, so that we know what’s going on and have some kind of rubric, logic and plan for the future that the Church can speak from. Right now, it’s a mess. We’ve got a bunch of different somewhat conflicting messages and honestly, we’re not making headway.

 

[salusanimarum17]

Your objection doesn’t really follow either, and this is because of the way insurance companies are set up. …

The OP said nothing about insurance, just an employer providing birth control to employees. Maybe “insurance” was implied but even if it was, I think the objection would still follow. It’s the same scenario, just on a different scale.

 

[iloveangels]

The fine will deter people from not subscribing. Their fine will go back into the pot though. So it will help.

Not really. The fine is actually smaller than the cost of buying insurance, and some people will pay the least they can just because it’s the least they can. And when they show up at the emergency room, we won’t turn them away. We can’t and we shouldn’t, although what they’ve done isn’t really okay.

For those who can’t afford either the fine or the insurance, the feds will be picking up the cost of the insurance, and probably the plan the government wants them to have, whether people would opt for it or not opt for it. These people get no choice.

 

[iloveangels]

The OP said nothing about insurance, just an employer providing birth control to employees. Maybe “insurance” was implied but even if it was, I think the objection would still follow. It’s the same scenario, just on a different scale.

Well then, he left out a key part of the question. The fact is that employers don’t hand out birth control at the office lunchroom. What they do is provide insurance that covers the cost of it at the pharmacy. That’s what the issue is. That’s how providing birth control works.

 

[YADA]

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.

Really - they do not use any resources? …

So they do not drive their vehicle choice down any public roadway?

When their children reach later teen years and go on their period of freedom and decision making - - they do not access any resources during that time? …

When the gunman entered their school and committed a crime - not one public resource was accessed? When other crimes have been committed in their community - not once nor in any manner was there a public resource used? …

They never utilize the US Postal service to transport any correspondance anywhere in the US?

An Amish person has never riden a train? -

They never used US currency - ever?

When a fire starts on Amish property - not once has a fire dept responded to aid - and even if so - never once has a fire escaped Amish property and thus a public fire department responded? …

Really you should speak from some factual basis …

The Amish pay property taxes, sales taxes and federal/state income taxes … self employed Amish do not pay Social Security Taxes … Amish - religious communities that maintain support for their elderly and in existance before a certain date do not have to pay Social Security - unless they work for outside employers - then they do … Amish employers and their employees have to pay Social Security

Social Security did not cover farmers initially - then later did … at that time some Amish complied with the law and others did not … I think there was a lawsuit - or some method of decision - but at any rate - the fact remains that only Social Security is the real tax break received …

 

[Stephen168]

Insurance is all about membership in statistically pooled groups of individuals and the name of the game, for the insurance company, is to make money by minimizing risk while maximizing sales. But of course, the name of the game for the government is different from that–it’s politics and getting elected. And for some on either political side of of the issue, it’s about political prosetylizing and pushing particular points of view and belief systems. This can even extend to taking sides culturally and religiously. That’s where the force comes in.

Insurance Companies are in the business of accepting risk for a fee. I don’t want to accept the risk of possible high medical bills due to possible sickness, so I transfer that risk for a fee to an insurance company. Many “benefits” managed by insurance companies for an employer are not insurance because there is no risk; vision, birth control, massages, etc.

I personally object to me personally paying for some things that other people do, such as abortion. I believe that abortion is an objective evil. However, my membership in a statistically pooled group of individuals is a problem if my views are far different than theirs, only in one way: I may end up paying a tiny fraction of something that I find morally objectionable. The “paying for it” is the problem for me. Up til now, it has been possible for the motivated person to find an insurance pool that doesn’t involve paying for abortion. If these exist, they should be legal. If the insurance company doesn’t object monetarily, I don’t know why the government should, unless they are using the insurance company for political gain, which is wrong.

Catholic employers who are morally against birth control do not what to pay for something they believe is wrong.

The fact that an insurance company is involved just gives the government a better handle than they previously had on me. This is a problem that’s growing in relevance, and I think it’s out of bounds. I don’t believe the government should have the right to expect me to pay for procedures like abortion, that I find objectionable. I object to paying for some military and social activities too. The government has the power to do too many things that I object to morally. So far, we have not solved this problem in American law and practice. It’s apparently one of the more grave problems that this sort of a system of governance has, although I don’t think it’s the only one.

We pay taxes and the sad fact is the government does all kinds of things with it we don’t like. Our dollar goes into the big pile and who knows where it goes after that. This iisue is the government requiring employers to dirctly purchase morally objectionable goods; like requiring Jews and Vegans to buy pork.

I personally also think that there’s a very big difference between
a) making a product non-available to the population of a certain religious group,
b) making it non-available to only the “professional” members of that certain religious group, or
c) allowing it to be available but expecting people from that religious group to exhibit some morality in choosing whether to use it or not. I’m as unclear as most other people how these things are supposed to be related and how this part is supposed to work, from a logical point of view.
d) allowing it to be available but expecting people who do NOT belong to that religious group to abide by the teachings of that religious group.

The availability and who uses what is not the issue, it is forcing an employer to purchase morally objectionale goods.

I’m very loyal to the Church. I just am not really sure this has really been thought out very well in a lot of ways.

The issue that Catholic employers have with purchasing birth control is very clear.

 

[djames99]

If you mean freedom of religious choice, there is no such thing. Now that there is only one true Church, God wants everyone to join it.

 

[iloveangels]

Insurance Companies are in the business of accepting risk for a fee. I don’t want to accept the risk of possible high medical bills due to possible sickness, so I transfer that risk for a fee to an insurance company. Many “benefits” managed by insurance companies for an employer are not insurance because there is no risk; vision, birth control, massages, etc.

Actually, there is a risk to vision and other services, depending on the patient. Not everyone is the same medically. Some people only require the services of an optometrist; some require more. [Actually, I happen to be one of those people.] Some products are related indirectly to risk too, such as massage for back injury and so on.

Catholic employers who are morally against birth control do not what to pay for something they believe is wrong.

Theoretically, up until now, this has been the case. It is no longer the case, except for those church organizations that have obtained a reprieve until 2014.

I say “theoretically” because most Catholic employers have, in fact, purchased plans covering birth control up to this point. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

We pay taxes and the sad fact is the government does all kinds of things with it we don’t like. Our dollar goes into the big pile and who knows where it goes after that. This iisue is the government requiring employers to dirctly purchase morally objectionable goods; like requiring Jews and Vegans to buy pork.

I agree here. But in a society like ours, I"m not sure how this can be handled. Up until a few years ago, most people in the society agreed on substantial points of public policy, but now that we’re so polarized, this has become a huge issue. We have no way of handling it within the type of governmental system we have, and I’m sure it’s not going to go away. I’m not sure where that leaves us.

The availability and who uses what is not the issue, it is forcing an employer to purchase morally objectionale goods.

I’m not entirely sure this is true. I think you have some hidden premisses here.

There’s a very big difference between
a) making a product non-available to the population of a certain religious group,
b) making it non-available to only the “professional” members of that certain religious group, or
c) allowing it to be available but expecting people from that religious group to exhibit some morality in choosing whether to use it or not. I’m as unclear as most other people how these things are supposed to be related and how this part is supposed to work, from a logical point of view.
d) allowing it to be available but expecting people who do NOT belong to that religious group to abide by the teachings of that religious group.

A lot of people don’t really want to analyze these differences in a clear way. There are also a lot of underlying assumptions here that no one really wants to challenge.

The issue that Catholic employers have with purchasing birth control is very clear.

I actually don’t believe this is true. I think that there are large parts of the issue that have not been worked out carefully. See above.

 

[iloveangels]

If you mean freedom of religious choice, there is no such thing. Now that there is only one true Church, God wants everyone to join it.

Actually I think, in a way, you have a key assumption to this discussion nailed. Do people really not have freedom of religious choice? Really?

 

[interestedman]

There’s a theoretical statement. I don’t think you mean that we should be out rounding people up by force, right? We don’t convert by the sword, you know.

Well at least not recently…

 

[iloveangels]

Well at least not recently…

I’m not aware that we ever found ourselves in a situation of plurality and did so. [A situation of plurality is when there are a lot of competing religions present and people choose between them, rightly or wrongly from the point of view of any party in the situation.]

The case can be made that in historical societies that were nearly completely Catholic, we expected everyone to convert or else trouble of one sort or another ensued, but in situations of plurality? There’s only one possible exception I can think of and that’s the conquistadores and the indians in Latin America. But we overwhelmed them totally militarily and that’s different, I think.

 

[interestedman]

I’m not aware that we ever found ourselves in a situation of plurality and did so. [A situation of plurality is when there are a lot of competing religions present and people choose between them, rightly or wrongly from the point of view of any party in the situation.]

The case can be made that in societies that were nearly completely Catholic, we expected everyone to convert or else trouble of one sort or another ensued, but in situations of plurality? No…I don’t think so.

I am quite certain that the inquisition involved converting by the sword.

 

[Nimzovik]

I would agree with that partialy. Atheists trumpet themselves at fair and opposed to the intolerance they see as caused by religion, but infact some radical atheists are just as intolerant and controling as theocrats. The US has no official state religion, but that dosn’t mean that the state religion is Atheism. in fact if the government has to take any stance it should probably take that of neutral agnosticism and regard all religions (including atheism) as equal.

honestly, i think that some of those militant atheists must have skin thinner than paper, you cant hardly say the word religion in some places without pissing them off. It wouldn’t suprise me if they tried to ban religious bumper stickers.

Bolding Mine:

I would say that the state does* inde*ed have Atheism as a state Religion. At least certainly that is it’s leaningsas evidenced by numersous factors such as when it perverts the writings of Jefferson or will not even allow for the theory of Intelligent Design (which is not Religio centric by any definite standards) to be even discussed in school text books. then there is the negation of the constituion of** Life,** Liberty and the oursuit of Happiness to appease the Atheist via abortion. I could *indeed *go on…and on…

 

[iloveangels]

I am quite certain that the inquisition involved converting by the sword.

No, actually, that’s been far overplayed by people seeking to see some evidence of the church carrying on with people. During the inquisition, criminals used to try to get themselves tried in Church courts, and would go out of their way to offend the church in order to land in a church court rather than a civil one. The Church courts were far more lenient and safer than the civil courts of the day.

 

[interestedman]

No, actually, that’s been far overplayed by people seeking to see some evidence of the church carrying on with people. During the inquisition, criminals used to try to get themselves tried in Church courts, and would go out of their way to offend the church in order to land in a church court rather than a civil one. The Church courts were far more lenient and safer than the civil courts of the day.

Really? Is there any historian that isn’t Catholic that will attest to this? I doubt it.

 

[iloveangels]

Bolding Mine:

I would say that the state does* inde*ed have Atheism as a state Religion. At least certainly that is it’s leaningsas evidenced by numersous factors such as when it perverts the writings of Jefferson or will not even allow for the theory of Intelligent Design (which is not Religio centric by any definite standards) to be even discussed in school text books. then there is the negation of the constituion of** Life,** Liberty and the oursuit of Happiness to appease the Atheist via abortion. I could *indeed *go on…and on…

In the US, people have made a very important, yet silly, logical mistake. The opposite of favoring a particular religion is NOT favoring no religion. That clause in the bill of rights was meant by the framers of the constitution to prevent a particular religion from becoming the state religion. It was never meant to prevent religion in general.

Here’s a riddle about a logical mistake involving negation:

Prison is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than love.
Therefore, prison is better than love.

Do you buy that?

The concept of negation, aka nothing or none, is a tricky one logically, and it’s a concept that people need to be careful and deliberate about. Otherwise all kinds of crazy illogical things can happen.

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, there is a risk to vision and other services, depending on the patient. Not everyone is the same medically. Some people only require the services of an optometrist; some require more. [Actually, I happen to be one of those people.] Some products are related indirectly to risk too, such as massage for back injury and so on.

There is no risk with basic vision, birth control, massage, etc. All the costs are known and negotiated and the employer pays.

Theoretically, up until now, this has been the case. It is no longer the case, except for those church organizations that have obtained a reprieve until 2014.

I say “theoretically” because most Catholic employers have, in fact, purchased plans covering birth control up to this point. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Catholic employers who are morally against birth control do not what to pay for something they believe is wrong. This does not change with the law. This is the WHOLE point of the issue. Because an employer who calls themselves Catholic purchases birth control does not mean there are Catholics who follow the teachings of the Church and their consciences will not allow it.

I agree here. But in a society like ours, I"m not sure how this can be handled. Up until a few years ago, most people in the society agreed on substantial points of public policy, but now that we’re so polarized, this has become a huge issue. We have no way of handling it within the type of governmental system we have, and I’m sure it’s not going to go away. I’m not sure where that leaves us.

We vote as faithful Catholics.

I’m not entirely sure this is true. I think you have some hidden premisses here.

There’s a very big difference between
a) making a product non-available to the population of a certain religious group,
b) making it non-available to only the “professional” members of that certain religious group, or
c) allowing it to be available but expecting people from that religious group to exhibit some morality in choosing whether to use it or not. I’m as unclear as most other people how these things are supposed to be related and how this part is supposed to work, from a logical point of view.
d) allowing it to be available but expecting people who do NOT belong to that religious group to abide by the teachings of that religious group.

A lot of people don’t really want to analyze these differences in a clear way. There are also a lot of underlying assumptions here that no one really wants to challenge.

Again, The availability and who uses what is not the issue, it is forcing an employer to purchase morally objectionable goods. Unless you can explain how your list of availability changes the issue of faithful Catholic Employers being forced to purchase birth control, I don’t see how it matters who it is available to.

I actually don’t believe this is true. I think that there are large parts of the issue that have not been worked out carefully. See above.

I saw above ,and it is very clear to me. If I were an employer, I would not want to purchase birth control or abortion for my employees. Would you?