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

[iloveangels]

… 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 much is true, and this is what all this mess may end up coming down to. It is what it is. And no amount of polling, agitating, positioning or anything else changes that.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

No, you are not. You are simply not participating in conduct that violates your own religious belief. You are not preventing employees from getting birth control on their own, if they feel it’s something they need. Why do you think that not paying for employee birth control is “forcing” anything on someone. It’s the opposite… not being forced to participate in conduct that violates one’s own belief.

interestedman:

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?

You are not making anyone conform to your own religious beliefs by not agreeing to pay for something you believe is immoral. In such a case, employees are free to purchase their own birth control.

If the government told you that you HAD to pay for something that you personally believed was immoral, how would that NOT be government interfering with your religious rights?

Peace,
Robert

 

[vsedriver]

Let’s not mince words.

Since when has free birth control been a “right”?

and why is only female birth control covered by insurance? why do men have to pay for condoms? It’s not fair! Insurance should cover condoms too.

 

[iloveangels]

and why is only female birth control covered by insurance? why do men have to pay for condoms? It’s not fair! Insurance should cover condoms too.

Well, see, now you’re getting to the political part. This is really only about politics and power from the point of view of the government.

[Although they say it’s about health care to cover their butts.]

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

One problem comes from the larger Catholic entities, which are self-insured. That means they are the ones managing the medical coverage that is being provided to employees. Clearly, in these cases the Catholic institutions are being compelled to directly contribute to conduct that they find immoral - abortion and artificial contraception.

Peace,
Robert

 

[iloveangels]

One problem comes from the larger Catholic entities, which are self-insured. That means they are the ones managing the medical coverage that is being provided to employees. Clearly, in these cases the Catholic institutions are being compelled to directly contribute to conduct that they find immoral - abortion and artificial contraception.

Peace,
Robert

Actually many of the larger Catholic organizations have not been self-insured. Dioceses and diocesan schools have been. However, many of the largest and most prestigious Catholic colleges, hospitals and other Catholic organizations have been using conventional insurance plans all along with birth control coverage. This is one of the big embarrassments in all of this. A lot of them are probably not going to change much, at least in the short term.

The ones that are caught in the middle are the ones like diocesan schools, who don’t meet the “religious organization” criteria set by HHS, and who were self-insured. They don’t meet the “religious organization” criteria because they serve non-Catholics, sometimes a lot of them, and teach various subjects, not having the performance or inculcation of religion as their primary goal. A very few of the more faithful colleges also fall into this category, like Franciscan University. I expect that before long, a sizable proportion of them will drop insurance coverage altogether. I know that Franciscan no longer has coverage available for its students, announced a month or so ago.

The ones who meet the “religious organization” criteria, like parish churches, convents, monasteries and so on, as I understand it, have until 2014 to comply.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

You are incorrect, again. Assuming you are referring to the Spanish Inquisition, that involved investigation into converts to Christianity that allegedly continued to practice their original faiths. It was not about forced conversion by the sword, as was practiced by the Muslims, and as was practiced in Communist countries such as the USSR and China, where communist governments brutally punished those who maintained their faith tradtions.

Peace,
Robert

 

[iloveangels]

Frankly, I don’t know if I would take that step. If a person willingly assents to sinful action and takes part in it, that is formal and material cooperation. If an employer is coerced into providing immoral “benefits,” and does not willingly offer such things, formal cooperation seems excluded. There is still material cooperation, of some sort, even if there is no culpability.

That is how I understand it, anyway.

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.

CCC paragraphs as noted below, taken from the searchable version at scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2272: *

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so. *

I think people had better be looking closely at what proportional reason is, keeping in mind that it’s not merely consequentialism.

 

[iloveangels]

You are incorrect, again. Assuming you are referring to the Spanish Inquisition, that involved investigation into converts to Christianity that allegedly continued to practice their original faiths. It was not about forced conversion by the sword, as was practiced by the Muslims, and as was practiced in Communist countries such as the USSR and China, where communist governments brutally punished those who maintained their faith tradtions.

Peace,
Robert

And actually is still being used in parts of the Middle East, India and Indonesia to this day. Some of the other major world religions are very much into conversion by the sword. Christians, including Catholics, are not.

Stuff like this goes on all the time, but our news media doesn’t usually report on it.
asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13069&size=A
persecution.net/iraq.htm
persecutionblog.com/2011/02/indonesia-sentencing-causes-riot-.html
christiantoday.com/article/christian.persecution.in.indonesia.escalates.in.street.attacks/4377.htm

 

[iloveangels]

There’s one other piece of this puzzle that’s not entirely clear. A great many Catholic couples already use birth control anyway. I wonder how likely all this is to actually change their behavior in any way? Birth control is already very available and very, very inexpensive at discount store pharmacies. Will this actually make any difference to the prevalence of use?

 

[iloveangels]

And actually is still being used in parts of the Middle East, India and Indonesia to this day. Some places in the world are very much into conversion by the sword. Christians, including Catholics, are not.

Stuff like this goes on all the time, but our news media doesn’t usually report on it.
asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13069&size=A
persecution.net/iraq.htm
persecutionblog.com/2011/02/indonesia-sentencing-causes-riot-.html
christiantoday.com/article/christian.persecution.in.indonesia.escalates.in.street.attacks/4377.htm

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

1 month’s worth of birth control costs $6 at Target in some states, in other Targets it is $9, in Walmart it is $9

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

Insurance companies will not be able to charge a deductible or cop pay for the coverage of sterilisation, contraception and abortifiacients. Cost will be added the standard premium everybody has to pay, including those who morally object. If an employee gets their insurance through an employer employer pays, not the employee

 

[Stephen168]

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?

Birth Control is not insurance because there is not transfer of financial risk from you to the insurance company. There is no financial risk because all the future costs are known. If birth control costs $200 per year, the insurance company would charge you at least $200 per year. There is no financial reason to purchase birth control “insurance.” Birth Control is a benefit paid by the employer, it is not insurance.

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.

Many people pay for abortions. Does that mean you have no problem paying for abortions?

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.

Again, would you purchase birth control or abortions for your employees?

 

[Stephen168]

and why is only female birth control covered by insurance? why do men have to pay for condoms? It’s not fair! Insurance should cover condoms too.

Neither are insurance, but women have a louder voice in politics to demand that someone else pays for their stuff.

 

[salusanimarum17]

There’s one other piece of this puzzle that’s not entirely clear. A great many Catholic couples already use birth control anyway. I wonder how likely all this is to actually change their behavior in any way? Birth control is already very available and very, very inexpensive at discount store pharmacies. Will this actually make any difference to the prevalence of use?

I suppose it makes no difference to their practices. It is going to change mine, though, since any insurance I have will include coverage of immorality. “Oh, well, you won’t have to use it.” Nice consolation prize. Just pay for immorality, that’s all. “But it’s free.” Nonsense.

I fully concur with the conclusions reached in this article: ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=0

 

[Stephen168]

There’s one other piece of this puzzle that’s not entirely clear. A great many Catholic couples already use birth control anyway. I wonder how likely all this is to actually change their behavior in any way? Birth control is already very available and very, very inexpensive at discount store pharmacies. Will this actually make any difference to the prevalence of use?

Because birth control is very available and very very inexpensive, I don’t think it will effect birth control use at all. The religion of the woman is irrelevant.

 

[meltzerboy]

I want to propose this analogy as to why the HHS mandate is wrong:

Suppose that the President and the Secretary of Agriculture decide that in order to improve the economy, Americans all have to pitch in to help the American farmer. They decide that the best way to do this is to drastically increase our consumption of pork. In order to do this, a combination of laws and regulations are passed that require every restaurant to sell something made with pork: bacon, sausage, ham sandwiches, etc. To make the rules fair, they apply to ALL restaurants, from your local Denny’s down to the smallest ma and pa places, including the vegan places, AND ALSO including the kosher delis.

Naturally organizations such as the Orthodox Union object. There’s no way these places can sell pork and still be kosher! The uproar rises to a level that the administration proposes an accommodation: the pork doesn’t have to be prepared on site; instead, the restaurants can buy pork sandwiches, that have been prepared off-site and wrapped in cellophane or plastic. That way, the workers at the vegan and kosher places don’t have to actually touch the pork.

This is not an accommodation! Ask your nearest Orthodox Rabbi: you cannot have ANY pork being offered in a restaurant and still have that place be kosher! And just because those insurance plans are prepared off-site and wrapped in plastic doesn’t mean we Catholics can legitimately participate and still say that we are not materially cooperating with evil.

Although an inconvenience and far from the ideal, I believe pork can be sold in a kosher deli provided it is not cut with the same slicing machine and utensils and served on the same dishes as are used for the kosher food. In this instance, perhaps take-out would be preferable. However, I understand your analogy and agree with it.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Because birth control is very available and very very inexpensive, I don’t think it will effect birth control use at all. The religion of the woman is irrelevant.

I agree and think this touches upon a larger issue.

Because birth control products are so cheap (often times free), and so readily available, there is absolutely no need to force insurance companies and/or businesses to cover it. None. It isn’t like heart surgery where you can spend tens of thousands of dollars.

The only reason to impose this upon private organizations is to make a political point that we, the federal government, can force you to abandon your religious beliefs and there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s it. All this fuss about healthcare is BS. They are only doing this so that they can prove that they can override your religious freedom.

 

[iloveangels]

Birth Control is not insurance because there is not transfer of financial risk from you to the insurance company. There is no financial risk because all the future costs are known. If birth control costs $200 per year, the insurance company would charge you at least $200 per year. There is no financial reason to purchase birth control “insurance.” Birth Control is a benefit paid by the employer, it is not insurance.

It’s being lumped with insurance because it’s a pharmaceutical drug.

Many people pay for abortions. Does that mean you have no problem paying for abortions?

Abortion is an objective evil. This isn’t about me or you. It’s about what’s already happening. Many Catholic institutions already had insurance that covered birth control when the mandate was passed down. This doesn’t change much for them except the level of embarrassment.

Again, would you purchase birth control or abortions for your employees?

I don’t have employees and this isn’t about me. The fact is, as I said above, that the idea that all Catholic institutions were/are self-insured is in error. Most diocesan institutions, to their honor and credit were self-insured, BUT as a matter of fact, most of the largest and most prestigious Catholic colleges, hospitals and other institutions have been using standard insurance plans that pay for birth control pills for years now. For them, this law means little in the short run. They don’t have to change anything and won’t be paying a fine.

The ones that are going to have troubles are the small companies that didn’t insure at all, and the diocesan institutions that were self-insured and now don’t meet the requirements for a religious organization, such as grade schools with non-Catholics attending. Also food banks and other outreaches run by parishes in big cities who might have employed someone, etc, because they serve all comers.