WH:No Constitutional Rights Issue in Forcing Catholics to Act Against Their Faith

[Robert_Bay]

But some have chosen to offer it…that’s the conundrum. Basically, they chose to survive which is understandable, but it hurts the current cause against the federal mandate I think. Then again, it may be proff of what will happen to Catholic institiutions across the country if they don’t comply…Comply and survive, or don’t comply and suffer/disappear.

There will be a compromise/accomodation offered by the white house today. We will see what it is and what the bishops say about it. The rumors is that it will be modeled after the state mandates.

With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. …

White House officials have discussed the state law in Hawaii, where religious groups are allowed to opt out of coverage that includes birth control, as long as employees are given information whether such coverage can be obtained. But this accommodation would not go that far.

This announcement would not go that far. Sources say it will involve health insurance companies helping to provide the coverage, since it’s actually cheaper for these companies to offer the coverage than to not do so, because of unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications.

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

 

[jonfawkes]

Do you not see the difference between an employee using their paycheck to pay for something independently and an employer paying for something directly? No one is forcing their Catholic views on anyone. Those non-Catholics can still buy their ABC elsewhere.

What is the degree of separation required for you not to be complicit? Are you complacent when paying your taxes that might be used for things that go against the Church like unjust war? We can live by our beliefs. Our laws require we allow others to be allowed to live by theirs.

 

[PaulinVA]

Healthcare is part of the employees pay. You are paying an employee with healthcare.

Every employer should have the right to craft a pay and benefits package as they see fit. People will work for them or people will not. If the pay or benefits don’t attract enough people, they have a problem. But, this should be under the control of the employer.

I agree it is a freedom of conscience issue - each to choose and follow their own conscience. Moral decisions shouldn’t be forced on us by our employers. Each should be able to practice their religion (or lack of it) as they see fit not how their employer see that they should.

Jon, please list the religions that consider taking birth control pills to be a central tenet of the faith. That is what you are arguing - that by not providing birth control the Catholic employer is prohibiting someone from practicing their religion, That argument does not withstand scrutiny.

 

[jonfawkes]

Every employer should have the right to craft a pay and benefits package as they see fit. People will work for them or people will not. If the pay or benefits don’t attract enough people, they have a problem. But, this should be under the control of the employer.

Jon, please list the religions that consider taking birth control pills to be a central tenet of the faith. That is what you are arguing - that by not providing birth control the Catholic employer is prohibiting someone from practicing their religion, That argument does not withstand scrutiny.

I’m not arguing that birth control is a tenet of someone’s faith. I’m arguing by making them comply with Catholicism you are forcing them to practice the tenets of Catholicism with is equivalent to making them practice another religion not their own which doesn’t have the same prohibitions. You are arguing to making Catholic law into secular law. That may work in your favor while Christians are the majority, it may not when they aren’t.

Religious prohibitions are self imposed prohibitions. If you choose to be a Catholic you have chosen to adhere to the Catholic Church. If you chose to be Jewish you adhere to the tenets of your faith, etc. You choose to regulate your own behavior based on your faith. You don’t get to extend it to others in this country. We aren’t a theocracy.

Should Seventh Day Adventist be able to opt of taxes because some of the money could be used to run State run liquor stores? Or lunch programs in public schools that serve meat? Conscience objectors because they don’t want to support military actions? The childless because they don’t have kids in school?

We all have things we object to based on religious faith and for other reasons but as Americans we are all in this together. Freedom goes both ways. Sometimes it is inconvenient. Like the freedom of speech, we might not like what someone has to say but we tolerate it because we want the same freedom to be extended to us. I don’t want to be subjected to Sharia law or Kosher Law etc.

 

[irishpatrick]

This is NOT a contraception issue–this** IS** a Constitutional issuse!

 

[jonfawkes]

I keep hearing that there are 28 states where Catholic Institutions are required by law, to pay for these services in their health care plans. This statement derails conversations. I don’t know if its true or how true.
I saw Lawrence O’Donnell, a lib, on MSNBC last night say, it was untrue and there was no state that required religious institutions to pay, there were exemptions. Then where are they getting this from?
BTW his guest said that some Catholic hospitals pay for these services in their benefits package in order to attract employees that would otherwise work somewhere else. Is that true? Even if it was, to me this a rogue Catholic hospital and unrelated to the mandate.

Do you consider Boston College a rouge Catholic institution?

 

[JimG]

Even if a Catholic employer voluntarily pays for a policy which covers contraception, that does not affect the issue at hand.

Any individual is free to volunarily violate his own conscience or his Church’s teaching.
But for the Government to require him to violate his own conscience is a direct violation of the first amendment.

As an extreme example, an individual might choose a policy for his employees which covers the cost of hiring a hitman. Your employee wants to hire a hitman, the insurance wil cover the cost.

Another employer says, no, hiring hitmen violates our religious principles, so we don’t cover it.

The government says, you must cover it, it’s mandated!

Employer says, that’s a violation of my conscience.

Goverment says, let’s compromise. Your policy doesn’t have to cover the cost of hiring hitmen. But you are required to advise them of local places to go where hitmen can be hired.

Nope, both are violations of religious liberty. Both are violations of freedom of conscience.

 

[DeniseNY]

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

An announcement on some sort of “accomodation” is forthcoming…

 

[JimG]

I’m thinking what might be the result if the case were presented to the original authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

“So,” you ask them, “does this document allow for the government to require an employer to pay for health insurance coverage which violates the employer’s religion?”

I thinking they would give you a rather startled look. “It would prohibit the government from interfering with religion in any way,” they would say. “But why would an employer be providing health insurance in any case?”

“Because the government requires it,” you say. “The government requires everyone to buy health insurance.”

“Oh, well that’s a violation too. The government can’t force you to buy something you don’t want, and the government can’t force an employer to buy something he doesn’t want. And the government can’t interfere with anyone’s practice of religion. Case closed.”

 

[LisaA]

I’m not arguing that birth control is a tenet of someone’s faith. I’m arguing by making them comply with Catholicism you are forcing them to practice the tenets of Catholicism with is equivalent to making them practice another religion not their own which doesn’t have the same prohibitions. You are arguing to making Catholic law into secular law. That may work in your favor while Christians are the majority, it may not when they aren’t.

Religious prohibitions are self imposed prohibitions. If you choose to be a Catholic you have chosen to adhere to the Catholic Church. If you chose to be Jewish you adhere to the tenets of your faith, etc. You choose to regulate your own behavior based on your faith. You don’t get to extend it to others in this country. We aren’t a theocracy.

Should Seventh Day Adventist be able to opt of taxes because some of the money could be used to run State run liquor stores? Or lunch programs in public schools that serve meat? Conscience objectors because they don’t want to support military actions? The childless because they don’t have kids in school?

We all have things we object to based on religious faith and for other reasons but as Americans we are all in this together. Freedom goes both ways. Sometimes it is inconvenient. Like the freedom of speech, we might not like what someone has to say but we tolerate it because we want the same freedom to be extended to us. I don’t want to be subjected to Sharia law or Kosher Law etc.

Wow, as someone said, the issue has been explained over and over to you but you simply refuse to acknowledge the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So you have a greater understanding of this issue than all of the Bishops, Cardinals and other Church officials who have said PROVIDING and PAYING FOR ABC, sterilization, and abortofacients is a violation of our faith?

No one is telling employees to practice the Catholic faith. We are not asking ABC to be outlawed even though it is against our faith…that would support your position. Instead the government is asking Catholic institutions to participate in sin. Do you understand that concept?

As to this being ‘inconvenient’ you trivialize a very grave matter. Again the Church is not asking the products to be outlawed or to not be allowed for their employees, they simply do not want to be complicit in this sin. Please pull out your Catechism and take a look!

Lisa

 

[PaulinVA]

I’m not arguing that birth control is a tenet of someone’s faith. I’m arguing by making them comply with Catholicism you are forcing them to practice the tenets of Catholicism with is equivalent to making them practice another religion not their own which doesn’t have the same prohibitions. You are arguing to making Catholic law into secular law. That may work in your favor while Christians are the majority, it may not when they aren’t.

Jon, today is Friday. I am going to eat a Blimpies Tuna sub after I run because I am Catholic and we are supposed to abstain from red meat or do something penitential. If someone else happens to order a tuna sub today, are they practicing the Catholic faith?

Sometimes a tuna fish sub is just a tuna sub. Not having birth control covered on your health insurance does not mean you are practicing the Catholic faith.

 

[jonfawkes]

Wow, as someone said, the issue has been explained over and over to you but you simply refuse to acknowledge the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So you have a greater understanding of this issue than all of the Bishops, Cardinals and other Church officials who have said PROVIDING and PAYING FOR ABC, sterilization, and abortofacients is a violation of our faith?

No one is telling employees to practice the Catholic faith. We are not asking ABC to be outlawed even though it is against our faith…that would support your position. Instead the government is asking Catholic institutions to participate in sin. Do you understand that concept?

As to this being ‘inconvenient’ you trivialize a very grave matter. Again the Church is not asking the products to be outlawed or to not be allowed for their employees, they simply do not want to be complicit in this sin. Please pull out your Catechism and take a look!

Lisa

Again what level of separation is required for Catholics not to be complicit? Are other groups allowed to opt out of civic responsibility based on religious and moral grounds? Seventh Day Adventists? Muslims? Hindus? Jews? Conscious objectors? Vegans?

 

[jonfawkes]

Jon, today is Friday. I am going to eat a Blimpies Tuna sub after I run because I am Catholic and we are supposed to abstain from red meat or do something penitential. If someone else happens to order a tuna sub today, are they practicing the Catholic faith?

Sometimes a tuna fish sub is just a tuna sub. Not having birth control covered on your health insurance does not mean you are practicing the Catholic faith.

If you ofter to buy someone lunch because they did a job for you but they were only allowed a tuna sub not a meatball one, yes you are making them conform to your religious beliefs. Let them get any sandwich they want.

 

[JimG]

Again what level of separation is required for Catholics not to be complicit? Are other groups allowed to opt out of civic responsibility based on religious and moral grounds? Seventh Day Adventists? Muslims? Hindus? Jews? Conscious objectors? Vegans?

Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion. The Govermnet is not allowed to impose on anyone a requirement to violate his religion. That applies to everyone. Civic responsibility entails the government not violating the first amendment.

 

[jonfawkes]

Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion. The Govermnet is not allowed to impose on anyone a requirement to violate his religion. That applies to everyone. Civic responsibility entails the government not violating the first amendment.

The state is not denying the free practice of religion. Catholicism is not being outlawed. If you choose to be an employer these are the rules. You can choose to be an employee rather than an employer and spare yourself the occasions of sin. No one is making you own a business.

P.S. Your taxes pay for morally objectionable things everyday.

 

[PaulinVA]

If you ofter to buy someone lunch because they did a job for you but they were only allowed a tuna sub not a meatball one, yes you are making them conform to your religious beliefs. Let them get any sandwich they want.

I work for an Indian-owned company. When they provide lunch for us (at their own initiative), it is frequently Indian food and sometimes there iareonly vegetarian dishes.

Am I being forced to conform to the Hindu religion by not eating meat that day? No, the absence of meat does not make me a Hindu for a day.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If you ofter to buy someone lunch because they did a job for you but they were only allowed a tuna sub not a meatball one, yes you are making them conform to your religious beliefs. Let them get any sandwich they want.

If I am a vegan, why should I be forced to be complicit with the slaughter of animals by purchasing a sandwich made with meat? If you want to eat meat, buy it yourself.

 

[Publisher]

If I am a vegan, why should I be forced to be complicit with the slaughter of animals by purchasing a sandwich made with meat? If you want to eat meat, buy it yourself.

Then don’t offer to buy me a sandwich at the local deli with no stipulations until I order it…then tell me to “buy it” myself…

 

[JimG]

The state is not denying the free practice of religion. Catholicism is not being outlawed. If you choose to be an employer these are the rules. You can choose to be an employee rather than an employer and spare yourself the occasions of sin. No one is making you own a business.

P.S. Your taxes pay for morally objectionable things everyday.

The government gives Catholic employers this choice: Pay for something that violates your religion OR go out of business.

What kind of choice is that? Reject your religion or go out of business.

Or try to stay in business while dropping all insurance coverage and paying a fine for each employee. Clear government coercion and unconstitutional.

A Catholic hospital can:

–stop being Catholic, or
–drop all insurance coverage and pay huge fines,
–go out of business

Not only a violation of Freedom of Religion, but an egregious violation.

 

[jonfawkes]

Not only a violation of Freedom of Religion, but an egregious violation.

How does it violate your practice of religion? Are Catholics required to own businesses? I missed that in the Catechism

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:21[/BIBLEDRB]