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

[iloveangels]

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

I did some personal research a while back about Teresa of Avila who had to deal with the local Church office about this on occasion and it came up in several sources incidental to my research. She was from a converso family, if I remember correctly, and also had some ecclesio-political problems founding a convent in a town that already had several of them. The church was also dealing with some extremes of inappropriate religious fervor and certain people in her hometown suspected her of the same. They were wrong of course, but it was still an issue for her.

I too was surprised, because this is not the popular perception. It’s certainly not what I was taught in my secular history book. But there are references to it. I don’t have them at hand right now though. You might look around a bit in information about Spain in that period if you’re really curious. That’s where I found it.

 

[YADA]

However, the Catholics could do the same and avoid paying social security and medicare taxes and would be excempt from this mandate as well if they didn’t claim any benefits from those programs. Being involved in a multi-cultural network means there will be some benefits and services that some will use, while others will not.

No because the organization had to exist in the 1950s … and you had to have in place a method to care for all of the elderly - outside of Social Security in order to avoid and gain the excpetion … Catholics were far to numerous and engaged in the culture to heve mounted that case - even in 1950

 

[Stephen168]

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

You’re wrong.

 

[iloveangels]

No because the organization had to exist in the 1950s … and you had to have in place a method to care for all of the elderly - outside of Social Security in order to avoid and gain the excpetion … Catholics were far to numerous and engaged in the culture to heve mounted that case - even in 1950

Yada,
You’re correct. Catholics have never differentiated themselves on the issues of social security or taxes before. In fact, on the contrary, most Catholics in the 50s were falling all over themselves to enter the cultural mainstream and would have considered such an idea to be awful and discriminatory.

 

[RobbyS]

Does beig an atheist require you to force your beliefs on everyone?

if you are a communist, yes. In the Soviet Union, you could not be a party member if you were a Christian. Modern atheism is not just a benign skepticism but a passionate “faith,” so the leaders do hesitate to impose their views of religion of society. It is called militant atheism and it is a common feature of our age.

 

[iloveangels]

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

Not all vision coverage is basic coverage. That’s what I’m telling you. Are you an opthalmologist?

In the same way that not all dental coverage is getting your teeth cleaned. Did you know that if you neglect your teeth it can shorten your life?

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.
We vote as faithful Catholics.

I have no idea what you’re trying to convey here. Most catholic employers up to this point in time, have in fact, bought insurance for their companies that includes birth control coverage. It’s a fact and you can look it up.

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 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?

Stephen, they already were purchasing it when the mandate was released. That’s one of the big embarrassments of this whole mess. Most dioceses (but not all) were self-insuring and that coverage did not cover birth control, but most Catholic employers that were not dioceses had done no such thing. The overwhelming majority of them were using popular insurance plans that did offer birth control.

 

[YADA]

Self insured businesses still have to purchase a plan from an insurance company. ……

I think you are uninformed and do not understand what it means to be “Self insured” … you are not required to ‘puchase’ insurance …

By self insuring you cover that expense … ditti with Unemployment insurance - the Catholic Church - at laeast in my state - self insures its unemplyment [UCI] costs rather than pay theUCI payroll tax to the state … when the Church lays of a person - they apply for unemployment and the state determmines the weekly amount as it would for any toehr employee … the w]employee recieves a check fromt he state - as any other unemployed person - the Church that laied of the employee receives a bill from the state to cover 100 percent of the cost …

Self insured [Health] entities pay for the doctor or hospital costs based upon the “plan” that they establish - directly … not through an insurance company …

By the way - the federal gov is "self insured’ for Unemployment Compensation Insurance … they do not pay the states through payroll taxes …

 

[Elizabeth502]

How are atheists forcing their beliefs on people?

By insisting that believers freeze their brains outside of Church facilities, and take on the mindset of secularity except in private, suspending belief in God and in God’s universal moral laws.

 

[YADA]

The employee pays by paying their portion of the premiums, no matter what plan is offered. It’s not about $6 a month for birth control.

My company pays 100 percent of my employees health insurance … so - tell me again - what part of the premium is paid by my employees ??? …

I guess you could say they are paying for the premium because by my mandating that they are covered by insurance means that they are not receiving that same monthly $$ benefit as wahges [and believe me - I have employees who would rather earn $600 more each month in wages then the health insurance - they have told me that on more then one occasion ] …

but in truth - you really do not know of which you choose to expound upon … … and you are spreading lot of mis-information …

does that not bother you at all

 

[iloveangels]

if you are a communist, yes. In the Soviet Union, you could not be a party member if you were a Christian. Modern atheism is not just a benign skepticism but a passionate “faith,” so the leaders do hesitate to impose their views of religion of society. It is called militant atheism and it is a common feature of our age.

A long time ago, before I was a Catholic, for a short time I was an atheist. The problem with being an atheist is that you have to keep convincing yourself that everything means nothing, which is, it turns out, incredibly DIFFICULT. You can’t look at babies or roses or have a nice meal without pretending it’s an accident. You can’t hope anything because hope is a sort of faith in the way things work, and expectation that there is order in the universe.

If you’re an atheist, all your feelings mean nothing, which means nothing, which in itself means nothing. Some atheists think that’s a dirty trick, but it means nothing, which means nothing, which…and you can’t even get upset about it, but they do, which means nothing, which…you get the idea. And then they have to go take it out on somebody, which apparently means something even though it’s not supposed to for a real atheist. You see the problem.

So…If you’re analytical like I am, you can’t be an atheist for very long. It’s too much work. And it alienates too many people. But before you give it up, you have to pester everyone within earshot in order to convince yourself. And then finally that doesn’t even work anymore.

At its worst it can cause real anger; at its best, it’s a kind of non-drug induced hippie funk only without munchies or any fun whatsoever. It’s a somber, self-destructive and very sad state of affairs.

There are some times in life that being difficult just doesn’t prove something is right. Rather sometimes it proves that it’s silly, vain and pointless, like chasing one’s tail. That pretty much sums up my interlude as an atheist.

 

[iloveangels]

My company pays 100 percent of my employees health insurance … so - tell me again - what part of the premium is paid by my employees ??? …

I guess you could say they are paying for the premium because by my mandating that they are covered by insurance means that they are not receiving that same monthly $$ benefit as wahges [and believe me - I have employees who would rather earn $600 more each month in wages then the health insurance - they have told me that on more then one occasion ] …

but in truth - you really do not know of which you choose to expound upon … … and you are spreading lot of mis-information …

does that not bother you at all

Yada, you are correct. Insurance is a benefit, one that is included when you are hired into a company. People don’t usually have the option of choosing the plan the company offers. It’s given as part of the benefit package, as is vacation time, training and other benefits the company might offer.

The company offers benefits largely so that they can compete with other companies to get good employees. If it becomes the case that insurance cannot be used in this way, then companies won’t offer it anymore because there will be no competitive advantage to it. That’s the main reason they offer it.

Some companies, in the past, have also offered insurance in an attempt to get their employees to take better physical care of themselves so they could do a better job at their work, but not all employees are reachable in this way. This is a more minor reason that employers carry insurance.

My guess is that both of the reasons employers offer insurance will go away in the future due to government interference, and that competitive benefit packages will no longer include health insurance in a few years. However, they may start offering “health vacations to other countries” for medical care. JMHO.

 

[Corki]

When I worked for a Catholic hospital, birth control pills were covered and the employee only had to pay a copay.

That’s very unfortunate.

How do you know that?

Because if the employee isn’t paying and the insurance company isn’t paying, the employer is paying.

In lieu of a copay, the costs will be offset in the premiums and deductibles, and copays for other services and medications.

Deductibles apply to specific services. If the cost of contraception doesn’t have a copay, it can’t be applied to the deductible.

If a company doesn’t already have this coverage, but other plans that the insurance company have contracted these plans, everyone who subscribes that insurance company will pay in their copays, deductibles and premiums.

If the plan is self-insured, as we have been discussing, it would be fraud to pass on the expense of one company’s employees to another company’s premiums. And if it’s passed on in the form of higher premiums (which for a self insured company are the admininstration fees) then the employer pays most of those anyway.

 

[Hypnotoad]

If a bunch of people work for me is it right for me to make them conform to my religious beliefs?

Yes it is especially if you were upfront about said beliefs. No one forced them to work for you.

 

[YADA]

You must have missed my past few posts: in the form of premiums, copays and deductibles. All costs of heathcare services are worked into the cost of insurance. If the insurance company provides ABCs in some of their plans, all of them share the cost. They’re not in the insurance business to go broke.

You are correct that costs are passed on …

Oregon passed some feel good legislation - I think it was in 1998 or 1999 …

The legislation mandated that 100 percent of insurance policies provide maternity benefits … there was no option to purchase a policy that did not provide a maternity benefit … at that time - we were providing a private health insurance policy for our daughter and grandson - she was a single mom …

First - the policy we were providing for her included a maternity benefit … however the month that the law went into affect [June] that policy increased 18 percent - a direct cost of this law … we paid the increase - but how many single mothers were priced out of their ‘self and child’ coverage by the legislation - our private insurance was purchased monthly …

My company policy was purchased on a yearly small group employer contract that renewed each August … that year my compnay insurance premium increased 23 percent upon renewal due to this law … My company plan included a maternity benefit - though that wasn ot the deciding factor in choosing that plan … my company employed three men - two unmarried - one married 61 yer old whose wife was beyond child brearing age and one woman beyond child bearing age … Not a single person was going to use the maternity benefit already included in the policy.

the cost increase was extreme 23 PERCENT … in addition to the other rising costs of doing business … as a business owner - the argument for any individual increase is its just XX percent … but when you add all of the little "its just … " together they add up to ALOT!!!

… I made the choice to maintain the coverage - but it was not an easy cost to absorb … MY profit - slim already - decreased, my clients paid higher costs and my employees wages were not increased to cover the cost that provided no direct benefit to any of my emplyees …

I could easily have

1. 
   *]dropped the coverage -
   *]made my employees begin contributing to the costs
   *]gone out of business altogether
   
   My daughter - as other single parents could easily
   1. 
      *]drooped coverage for herself and son - somthting I am sure happened to some single parents - and took the chance they would not need health care …
      *]dropped health coverage and went onto the “OR Health Plan” government health insurance paid through federal and state taxes …
      *]not eaten or paid other expenses like rent, utilities, etc
      
      Somewhere in Salem - there were legislators that touted their 'Achievement" in this legislation …
      
      But they never counted the cost in lost jobs, lost purchasing power and lost health coverage …
      
      Nor the insult to people - whether individuals and / and employers - that they could decide for themselves whether they needed or wanted coverage for maternity care …

 

[iloveangels]

Yes it is especially if you were upfront about said beliefs. No one forced them to work for you.

This is true too, and once you are on the job, most employers will have no trouble reminding you of this.

 

[Muzhik]

The problem with this analogy is that in your example, people are being forced to consume something they don’t want. With the mandate, the benefit is available, but you don’t have to use the benefit.

You misread the analogy: people aren’t being forced to consume the pork. The businesses, though, are required to carry the pork.

 

[iloveangels]

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?

If the cost goes up it will be passed to the consumer somehow, yes. If not directly, which is the cheapest way, then indirectly, which is the most expensive way. The government has no money of its own. It’s all our money, and we’re all paying for all of this. If we buy more services, yes, it will cost more money. I have no idea how this could be a mystery to anyone.

Is it true that if you liked your health care plan you could keep it except if you were a religious organization?

No, not in the long run. What the market dictates as a result of what the government decides will determine what you and I get. This means that all bets are off for prediction. No one knows til it happens. And don’t let the politicians fool you. They don’t know either.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes. Many of the Catholic organizations self insure. They pay for the coverage, and therefore the drugs…

Be careful not to overstate this point. Diocesan catholic organizations often self-insure, such as diocesan offices and diocesan Catholic schools. Religious orders also often self-insure. But many Catholic colleges, hospitals and private Catholic employers do not self-insure. In fact, many of them have been using conventional insurance plans that do offer birth control and other reproductive services and they’ve been doing this for years.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Are atheists shutting down churches? How are atheists forcing their beliefs on people?

Through the HHS Mandate. If it is not struck down it will cause many Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and other organizations the Church has for the benefit of mankind, to close. To be Catholic means we can not compromise our faith. Using the fact that there are many lapsed Catholics in the world who use birth control, who do this or that sin, does not weaken the Catholic argument or strengthen yours. This HHS Mandate forces Catholics to compromise their faith to appease a tyrant of a leader who is paving his re-election campaign on the blood of tens of millions of innocent murdered babies. The HHS Mandate is unconstitutional and an atrocity to the common sense of the average american. The founding fathers would have ripped the HHS Mandate to pieces.

 

[iloveangels]

That is how I understand it as well.

(speaking of the possibility of formal and material cooperation & their relationship to free will)

Same thing here. For a sin to be a mortal sin, I think it’s something you have to be able to choose, right?

Maybe this would’ve applied before the mandate took effect because there were Catholic workplaces with insurance providing ABC, and maybe this might apply to people who helped put the mandate into effect, and there were some Catholics involved.

But it’s hard to see how it could apply afterwards…unless they’re expecting Catholic businessmen to just hold the line and go bankrupt and lay everybody off? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see what it could be.