Obama Contraception Compromise

[Nebuloso]

but on the other hand it really does seem like a violation of freedom of religion.

Why?

If there was a religion which thought that throwing a virgin into a fucking volcano was a sacred ritual would you still think that the government telling them they couldn't was a violation of their "freedom?"

Continue reading....

However, that also begs the question, where do you draw the line with freedoms in religions? When a bishop tells people that can't use contraceptions that results in prevented teen pregnancies, diseases, and death or when a muslim crashes a plane into a building?

I am in agreement with everyone here. I had misunderstood a few facts about about this. I get what I deserve for watching FauxNews. That is why I wanted to see a good debate on the topic so I could make an informed decision.

Thanks to everyone.

[Minimalist]

This is about being forced to put money into something you don't believe in.

Oh, so when Bush starts useless fucking wars I don't have to pay my taxes because I don't like them?

[J.D.]

This was not a violiation of religious liberty, the requirement would stand up in court and is the law in I believe 28 states. The Catholic Church was playing politics. They have been getting increasingly conservative and politically active over the past several years, and this was a chance for them to engage in demogougery.

Remember this requirement was made of hospitals and universitities operated by the Catholic Church, not the churches themselves. These institutions are required to follow the same employment laws as any other employer.

I am really sick of this garbage. I have never been relgious, never belonged to a church, but I have always been tolerant of other people having their own beliefs. Now, it seems they want to asser those beliefs into public policy that impacts people who do not share their beliefs, and when they do this, the are crossing the line.

It seems that when I would read about this issue online, there was always a picture of one of those Bishops dressed up in his midevil garb, and I would see that picture and just get so pissed off that thousands of people take this stuff serious. This is so middle ages. Give me a break!

[Minimalist]

Remind me again about how fucking moral these cocksuckers are.

http://wonkette.com/415352/pope-finally-...-bad-thing

Nazi Pope Joseph Ratzinger flew on his supervillain pope-plane to Portugal and said a few words about the decades-long child-rape scandal destroying the Vatican Mafia’s global bullshit business. This is apparently a big deal, that Ratzinger sort of half-ass acknowledged that priests and bishops raping children and the highest officials in the Catholic Church engineering massive international cover-ups might be kind of a rotten situation. He’s the best pope ever, for saying this! He didn’t even blame the newspapers and the homosexuals and the Devil and the liberals this time, specifically, the way his creepoid henchmen did during the Easter week “festivities.”

[Godscreated]

Before the government makes people violate their beliefs, it should require all companies to have insurance available to their employs.

[coffeeveritas]

I am interested in hearing different opinions from people regarding the the Obama Contraception Compromise. I am torn on what to think. On one hand I think it is really great and important that the hospitals do provide contraception but on the other hand it really does seem like a violation of freedom of religion. However, that also begs the question, where do you draw the line with freedoms in religions? When a bishop tells people that can't use contraceptions that results in prevented teen pregnancies, diseases, and death or when a muslim crashes a plane into a building?

I would love to hear from Atheists and Christians alike because I truly am in the middle because first and foremost and I am for protecting freedoms.

Well the issue of contraception in the Catholic Church is a pretty broad one. There a few facts to keep in mind.

1. 98% of Catholic women use birth control regardless of what the church says.

2. The church's stance on contraception is wildly unpopular with the Catholic people at large, and even some Catholic scholars. There is no real basis in Scripture for it, and it's being torn apart in scholastic circles. It's really only a few hardliner bishops that keep it going.

3. The church's stance is determined entirely by a small group of men.

So what we have is a policy about women's reproductive health that is being forced on the church at large by some old guys. The women of the Catholic Church apparently don't believe in the ban. Which brings us to the next point:

What about the religious freedoms of the people who don't believe in the ban? Why is it fair for women who work at religious hospitals to be denied an essential part of their health care because a minority of Catholic men say so? The fact is that there are thousands of women in this situation who don't believe the same way but are being forced to pretend as if they did.

Some legal issues also apply:

1. There the an issue of violating the constitutional rights of the workers because women are being treated differently than men. (This form of contraceptive discrimination, by the way, has been an illegal form of discrimination since 2000.)

2. The ruling really only applies to religious institutions that accept federal money anyway, so they could just say that the money used for recognizing the constitutional rights of women came out of the "secular" money. That way the church's hands are clean.

3. No one is forcing women to take contraception. If they identify as Catholic and feel that it is wrong, they don't have to use that part of their coverage. However, for the Catholic women whose personal beliefs allow for the use of contraception (98%), they have the right to access to it. Believers within a certain religious institution still have the right to their own beliefs under the constitution, and no bishops gets to decide what those are for them.

4. You can't control what people do with things. I could use my paycheck from a Catholic hospital to buy condoms, lube, chex mix, and a big banner that reads, "Orgy tonight!" and they couldn't say anything. What's the difference with providing someone with health care coverage that they might use to get birth control, and giving them a paycheck that they might use to buy birth control? Either way the end result of the church's money is lots of sweaty, Catholic sex.

[thesummerqueen]

That was quite thorough, sugar.

[Jaysyn]

It's their right to hold this belief without being criticized for it..

Bzzt wrong! No one has that "right". I can't start burning down their churches or excluding them from government functions, but that's about as far as it goes.

I can criticize you fools all that I want.

---

This is not only about what to offer. This is about being forced to put money into something you don't believe in. Would you like, say, your money going to a Christian missionary association because the government deems the spreading of Christianity in Muslim countries a way of making peace?

Strawman.

The insurance companies are providing birth control free of charge. It is actually cheaper for an insurance company to do this than pay for a childbirth or abortion.

I repeat: free contraception is beneficial to the insurers & it costs the biblethumpers nothing. This is about control, pure & simple.

---

birth control is not a right given by our Constitution

You don't say? Could it be because it enumerates the powers of the federal government & nothing else?

[Doubting Thomas]

Until the church starts paying child support to people and offers free babysitting services, they don't have the right to tell anyone that they can't use contraception. I've got two kids and don't want any more. I'll be damned if I'm going to wait until my wife goes through menopause to have sex again.

[thesummerqueen]

Yes, but DT - god is supposed to decide how many kids you have, didn't you know that?