Question about Catholic Lawsuit & 1st ammendment

[Angel7]

43 Catholic organizations are sueing the Obama administration because of the birth-control mandate that forces them to act against their beliefs. Now im not questioning anything on birth control or etc…

What I am asking is basicaly a 1st ammendment question

The Bishops’ stance is that we should not be forced to act against our consciences right?
But cant this be abused? Cant people say that paying taxes may, in their belief system, be immoral? Would government function with that stance?

Im not questioning anything about the Church, only the compatibility of our beliefs with the American Constitution. If that makes sense?

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Our 1st Amendment is for our Religious Liberty. That means that the Goverment cannot
infringe our practice of religion and our consciences. This is what is happening now, the government mandates that religious organizations, church schools, and other ministeries
must provide the contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilizations in their health
insurance coverage. So they are FORCING us to do this in violation of our consciences.

Don’t be taken in by the “separation of Church and state” argument, either. We (Catholics) are not telling the government that they cannot support contraception, we
are just wanting to practice our religion without their interference.

 

[JRKH]

Yes this freedom could certainly be abused and this is why it will wind up being the Supreme court who decides who is being abusive in this case…

Peace
James

 

[lerapt78]

43 Catholic organizations are sueing the Obama administration because of the birth-control mandate that forces them to act against their beliefs. Now im not questioning anything on birth control or etc…

What I am asking is basicaly a 1st ammendment question

The Bishops’ stance is that we should not be forced to act against our consciences right?
But cant this be abused? Cant people say that paying taxes may, in their belief system, be immoral? Would government function with that stance?

Im not questioning anything about the Church, only the compatibility of our beliefs with the American Constitution. If that makes sense?

Hi Angel7,

Well actually, there are some attorneys who claim that federal income tax is unconstitutional because the ratification of the 16th Ammendment was not gained by 3/4 vote. (I myself would never be so brave as to send the IRS a nice little note on April 15th telling them to “stuff it” )

Unfortunately, the good intentions of our Founding Fathers are abused all the time in our immoral society. I saw a young man wearing a t-shirt at a festival a couple of months ago that was so vulgar I remember thinking “I bet Thomas Jefferson never dreamed his eyes would have to be subject to this under freedom of speech”

But in regards to your question, I think the federal lawsuits have a good defense under the religious freedom clause, primarily because Catholic opposition to birth control is not a new decree that can be argued as an attempt to circumvent the new health mandate, nor is the Catholic Church demanding that no one be allowed to use contraception - they simply do not respect an order to provide it, and can support that argument with doctrinal teaching that has been in place long before this law was conceived. Making statements such as “I feel any tax is immoral”, or “I think gun ownership is immoral” are individual beliefs and would not fall under the same umbrella as objections made on behalf of religion. (Although again, the objection to taxation may have some validity to it, because the government forces our compliance, whereas no one is forced to own a gun).

There are instances in which law can override religious practices however, such as in a case where religious belief/practice infringes upon an individual’s right (for example, you could not ritualistically sacrifice or imprison a human under religious freedom and violate their right to life/liberty). So in this the case of birth control, I imagine it would have to be established that birth control is a “right”, much like the case for same-sex marriage.

 

[JimG]

It’s not about taxation. It’s about the federal government through HHS requiring that Catholic institutions must either violate their conscience–i.e. cease to be Catholic, by following the mandate–or go out of business.

It’s also about the HHS taking the position that only the government through HHS gets to decide what a religion is. Any Catholic institution which helps the poor, or any non-Catholics, is by HHS definition, not a religious institution, and gets no exemption from the mandate. Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, Catholic schools, are not Catholic by the HHS definition; thus they must either violate Catholic morals or go out of business. It is an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Hi Angel7,

Well actually, there are some attorneys who claim that federal income tax is unconstitutional because the ratification of the 16th Ammendment was not gained by 3/4 vote. (I myself would never be so brave as to send the IRS a nice little note on April 15th telling them to “stuff it” )

Unfortunately, the good intentions of our Founding Fathers are abused all the time in our immoral society. I saw a young man wearing a t-shirt at a festival a couple of months ago that was so vulgar I remember thinking "I bet Thomas Jefferson never dreamed his eyes would have to be subject to this under freedom of speech"

But in regards to your question, I think the federal lawsuits have a good defense under the religious freedom clause, primarily because Catholic opposition to birth control is not a new decree that can be argued as an attempt to circumvent the new health mandate, nor is the Catholic Church demanding that no one be allowed to use contraception - they simply do not respect an order to provide it, and can support that argument with doctrinal teaching that has been in place long before this law was conceived. Making statements such as “I feel any tax is immoral”, or “I think gun ownership is immoral” are individual beliefs and would not fall under the same umbrella as objections made on behalf of religion. (Although again, the objection to taxation may have some validity to it, because the government forces our compliance, whereas no one is forced to own a gun).

There are instances in which law can override religious practices however, such as in a case where religious belief/practice infringes upon an individual’s right (for example, you could not ritualistically sacrifice or imprison a human under religious freedom and violate their right to life/liberty). So in this the case of birth control, I imagine it would have to be established that birth control is a “right”, much like the case for same-sex marriage.

Pretty sure TJ and any of the other Founders would have trounced that young man and used his shirt to wipe up the mess. We’re just too careful not to hurt anyone’s feeeeeeeelings these days.

I asked a young man to turn his shirt inside out. He was at a family restaurant and the shirt had the “F” word right on the front. I was shocked that someone would actually choose to put such a shirt on in the first place, let alone wear it into a family restaurant where a lot of kids were! (He did)

 

[rossum]

43 Catholic organizations are sueing the Obama administration because of the birth-control mandate that forces them to act against their beliefs. Now im not questioning anything on birth control or etc…

What I am asking is basicaly a 1st ammendment question

The Bishops’ stance is that we should not be forced to act against our consciences right?
But cant this be abused? Cant people say that paying taxes may, in their belief system, be immoral? Would government function with that stance?

Im not questioning anything about the Church, only the compatibility of our beliefs with the American Constitution. If that makes sense?

First Amendment freedom of religion is not an absolute freedom. If someone decides to follow Aztec religion, and offer human sacrifices to Huitzilopochtli, they will get very short shrift when they plead the First Amendment to a murder charge.

In other cases, religions are allowed an exemption. It is normally illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex, yet religions get a pass if they only appoint male priests or female priestesses.

Where the case falls somewhere in between it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide, as in the recent Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran School case.

rossum

 

[JimG]

This little dialog between Katheen Sebelius and Rep. Trey Gowdy might help to clarify the constitutional issues involved:

youtube.com/watch?v=DmpoYb-hA1s

 

[Angel7]

It’s just that I like to think in terms of absolutes.
So I agree that the mandate will force Catholic institutions to violate their consciences, and is wrong. But say if another religious institution claims that paying taxes to the government is immoral in their belief system (and they genuinly believe that). Then would this also be considered as the government over-stepping its boundaries?

Can’t individual beliefs be just as protected as religious beliefs? Or should they?

I also agree that one person’s right to religious freedom, or any freedom, cannot override another person’s right to live or be free, etc…

But a side question; shouldn’t the Church actively be working to stop the use of Birth Control? We have stances of Pro-Life and Pro-Traditional Marriage, probably because these are major societal issues as well, not necessarily religious. A humanitarian concern.
So does that mean that the Church allows Laws that promote immoral behavior (the populace being aware or unaware?)
The country would obviously see any anti-birth control movement as too much, but why does the Church not oppose it’s allowance?

Again, I like to think in terms of absolutes.

I wonder if the Church has a doctor on political science

 

[manualman]

The Supreme Court exists to weigh the balance between rights that sometimes come into conflict.

For example, we all know that freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental constitutional rights. But it’s still illegal and prosecutable to call in a false bomb threat or yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

The Court weighs the heirarchy of rights and rules on that basis.

In this case, there is no justification for requiring catholics to violate our consciences when those with different beliefs can legally use their own money to walk to the corner gas station or Walgreens and buy $5 worth of condoms instead with their own money. We see that as morally wrong, but we don’t campaign to make it illegal against the will of the people. We just ask not to be forced to pay for it.

In your example of a religious group saying it is against their beliefs to pay taxes, the opposite is true. Modern society could not function without a stable government to enforce the laws and provide infrastructure, so there is no feasible alternative to the requirement of taxing all. Although in some circumstances, exceptions ARE made. The Amish are not required to pay Social Security because they not only object to the taxation, but have established their own privately funded alternative system (charity!) Thus the government allowed them to opt out.

 

[tgrath]

Our 1st Amendment is for our Religious Liberty. That means that the Goverment cannot
infringe our practice of religion and our consciences. This is what is happening now, the government mandates that religious organizations, church schools, and other ministeries
must provide the contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilizations in their health
insurance coverage. So they are FORCING us to do this in violation of our consciences.

Don’t be taken in by the “separation of Church and state” argument, either. We (Catholics) are not telling the government that they cannot support contraception, we
are just wanting to practice our religion without their interference.

This is an interesting problem, as this point of view ignores the “rights” of secular employees of Catholic entities who would enjoy their right to the same support for contraception, etc. as other employees. When viewed from that angle, then the question is mute.

The other view would be that an employee is a free agent, and may choose to work for a particular employer, or not. This view was prevalent at one time, but has been discarded in modern (20th and 21st century) jurisprudence. Yet, the religious preference objection is a serious one.

Thorny issue for a moderate. Obvious for religious extremists, and also for libertarians, to opposite ends.

 

[JRKH]

It’s just that I like to think in terms of absolutes.

So do I but one must recognize that “absolutes” work best as principles which provide a solid framework upon which to build when the various and legitimate “shade of grey” are introduced…

So I agree that the mandate will force Catholic institutions to violate their consciences, and is wrong. But say if another religious institution claims that paying taxes to the government is immoral in their belief system (and they genuinly believe that). Then would this also be considered as the government over-stepping its boundaries?

Actually this has occurred. When the Social security act was passed, one religious group - the Amish - objected and won. They neither pay she SS tax nor do they collect from the SS fund. (Article Here)

Can’t individual beliefs be just as protected as religious beliefs? Or should they?

There is no provision in the Constitution for such a thing. “Church” (Ekklesia) means community and an individual would hardly qualify as such…

I also agree that one person’s right to religious freedom, or any freedom, cannot override another person’s right to live or be free, etc…

Good

But a side question; shouldn’t the Church actively be working to stop the use of Birth Control?

First we need to define “Birth Control”…The Church IS actively working to prevent certain methods of “birth control” like abortion and artificial contraception.
On the other hand the Church promotes other forms of “birth control” - NFP for married couples and abstinence for unmarried people.

We have stances of Pro-Life and Pro-Traditional Marriage, probably because these are major societal issues as well, not necessarily religious. A humanitarian concern.
So does that mean that the Church allows Laws that promote immoral behavior (the populace being aware or unaware?)

The Church does not “Allow” such laws. The civil governments do.
If you look at Church Law you will find no such laws on the books.

The country would obviously see any anti-birth control movement as too much, but why does the Church not oppose it’s allowance?

As I said, the Church DOES oppose it’s allowance…Are there any morally licit methods that you think the Church is overlooking??

Peace
James

 

[manualman]

This is an interesting problem, as this point of view ignores the “rights” of secular employees of Catholic entities who would enjoy their right to the same support for contraception, etc. as other employees. When viewed from that angle, then the question is mute.

Seriously? You think the convenience factor of getting these things “free” (yeah, right) for one group is a difficult call in terms of the moral violation it poses for the other group? One group must violate their core beliefs to serve the convenience of the other? THATS a hard call??? God help us.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Seriously? You think the convenience factor of getting these things “free” (yeah, right) for one group is a difficult call in terms of the moral violation it poses for the other group? One group must violate their core beliefs to serve the convenience of the other? THATS a hard call??? God help us.

Well said. Thanks.

 

[Angel7]

The Church does not “Allow” such laws. The civil governments do.
If you look at Church Law you will find no such laws on the books.

As I said, the Church DOES oppose it’s allowance…Are there any morally licit methods that you think the Church is overlooking??

Peace
James

I know the Church is against artificial contraception and only supports NFP. I was just not aware if the Church has taken any social or legal initiatives to stop the sale of contraceptives. Since the Church is fighting for Marriage and Life it struck me as weird that other areas receive little attention. So there very well may be initiatives to stop ABC, but I never heard of them.

 

[JRKH]

I know the Church is against artificial contraception and only supports NFP. I was just not aware if the Church has taken any social or legal initiatives to stop the sale of contraceptives. Since the Church is fighting for Marriage and Life it struck me as weird that other areas receive little attention. So there very well may be initiatives to stop ABC, but I never heard of them.

Yes indeed…The primary method used by the Church is a little thing called “Education”…
Education has two vital effects that cannot be had any other way.
First is the fact that those properly educated and convinced of the problems with ABC will not practice it.
Second is that those properly educated and convinced, will vote “Pro-life” at the polls.

The first of these is the most crucial and this is the primary area in which the Church works.

There are also Catholic clinics etc that offer an alternative to “Planned Parenthood”…

Others can probably provide more info and programs

Peace
James

 

[white_sheep]

The Bishops’ stance is that we should not be forced to act against our consciences right?
But cant this be abused? Cant people say that paying taxes may, in their belief system, be immoral? Would government function with that stance?

The issue is one of religious liberty, in this case where the government has denied such, and it will be worked out in the courts.

As far as your taxes question goes, no, people can’t say that. There are already laws that have settled the issue. Look up the Mennonites, Amish, and First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA, to see an explanation of the requirements to avoid taxes. They avoid SS taxes on the grounds that they care for their own. But you can’t make a new religion and claim that. It states in the law it must have been established by some date around 50 or 60 years ago.

 

[AdDeum]

And Sebelius is Catholic… Should I add the word “Cafeteria” in there?

 

[JimG]

And Sebelius is Catholic… Should I add the word “Cafeteria” in there?

or “clueless.” But she is not alone in that.