What exactly is the christian fear of gay marriage?

[connermt]

This thread is meant for clarification purposes:
As a christian, what do you fear the legalization of gay marriage will do to the country, your faith and yourself personally?
Please provide examples of past issues where something was made legal and created a negative issue with your country, faith and/or yourself.

Of course there are extremes on each side, but the majority of people who are pro-legal gay marriage don't seem to much care what a church says, so long as their legal rights are adhered to just like eveyone else's.

I've looked at many responses to both sides and can honestly not see, other than hate or "being gay is gross", any legitimate reasons that would want one to say "gay people who care about each other and live in a relationship shouldn't have the say legal rights as straight people.

Any elightenment on the subject would be appreciated.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

JW's don't, as far as I am aware, directly provide health care. They contract their health services out to third party insurance companies.

However, if the situation is the same; that is, if the plumber injures himself at home, uses the insurance that is provided by the JW's (and the JW"s directly pay for the care rather than contract it out) then I'm sure that the plumber knows VERY well what the JW position is on the use of blood products. He accepted the job knowing this. He accepted the insurance knowing this. So if he is injured and needs a blood transfusion, I suppose that he will have a choice: don't accept a transfusion, accept blood substitutes (for which the JW's would pay) or pay for the blood himself.

The situation, however, wouldn't be the same, since JW's do not, as some of the Catholics who are now suing, supply health care directly.

So to be clear, if the JW's provided their own health care their employees would have to pay for their own blood transfusions. Presumably employees of Christian Scientists would have to pay for their own prescription drugs and surgery. I don't really like the idea of what medical treatment I have access to being determined by the religious beliefs of someone else. Seems like a weird system but at least you're being consistent.

[dianaiad]

JW's don't, as far as I am aware, directly provide health care. They contract their health services out to third party insurance companies.

However, if the situation is the same; that is, if the plumber injures himself at home, uses the insurance that is provided by the JW's (and the JW"s directly pay for the care rather than contract it out) then I'm sure that the plumber knows VERY well what the JW position is on the use of blood products. He accepted the job knowing this. He accepted the insurance knowing this. So if he is injured and needs a blood transfusion, I suppose that he will have a choice: don't accept a transfusion, accept blood substitutes (for which the JW's would pay) or pay for the blood himself.

The situation, however, wouldn't be the same, since JW's do not, as some of the Catholics who are now suing, supply health care directly.

So to be clear, if the JW's provided their own health care their employees would have to pay for their own blood transfusions. Presumably employees of Christian Scientists would have to pay for their own prescription drugs and surgery. I don't really like the idea of what medical treatment I have access to being determined by the religious beliefs of someone else. Seems like a weird system but at least you're being consistent.

What's weird about it? This is standard practice in most aspects of a job; requirements, benefits, what the employee pays for, what the employer pays for....

What's the difference between, say, knowing before you accept a job that you have to purchase your own work uniform, knowing that you will be required (at your own expense) to take classes to keep your credentials current, and knowing that the insurance provided by your employer isn't going to include birth control pills, or dental care, or plastic surgery?

Here's a hint.

There isn't any difference.

Since when do you have the right to demand that an employer provide precisely what you want?

Well, you do have that right, in the negotiation stage of getting a job. The employer has the right to say...sorry, that's not what I'm offering. There are plenty of employers who do not offer insurance at all--because they can't afford it. In fact, the number of employers who do not offer health insurance is going UP as a result of Obamacare.

Here's the thing: if, when you apply for a job, you don't like the sort of health care being offered to you as being good enough, then you have a decision to make. Either take what is offered pass up the job and find another. What you do NOT have the right to do is demand that the rules be changed after you have accepted the job.

of course, that's what the government is doing to the Catholics,isn't it? Changing the rules about what they MUST do as a result of taking government funds for any reason, even though the original requirements around that money didn't include the new, coercive, requirements?

Comes down to this: You don't like the insurance, don't take the job. If you take the job, figure that you are going to have to pay for those things that are not being provided.

[Jax Agnesson]

This looks like a really strong argument, D; as most of your posts do.
I'm not best qualified to intervene in the discussion between you and kayky, (whose arguments also look pretty strong to me) because I'm not American, and not all that familiar with your political and legal structures. So I'm seeking clarification here.
Suppose I work as a plumber in an office block belonging to the JW's. I'm not a JW, in fact I know zip about the JW faith; but I'm a competent plumber, and the JW's are ok with hiring me.
And suppose one day I'm particularly clumsy, or unlucky, and I suddenly need a blood transfusion? Whose rights are paramount? My rights as a worker, (and a human being) or the JW's rights not to pay for blood transfusions? And what if my wages are partly funded by the state? Does that make a difference?

Since you are not American, I need to clarify something regarding the situation your clumsy plumber finds himself in.

That is, an accident at work is paid for out of different funds than any other health situation. For instance, if a patient goes into a Kaiser Permanente urgent care facility with a broken arm, one of the questions asked will be 'did you do this at work?" If so, Kaiser will still provide the care, but will bill Workman's Compensation, not its own funds. Workman's compensation is a fund that pretty much everybody has to pay into, here---even home-owners who hire someone to do odd jobs. This fund takes care of accidents and work based incidents--which, by the way, have never included situations for which the cure is birth control pills.
What this means is that the JW's, who are neither responsible for, nor in charge of, medical care for their non-JW plumbers in a building, are not involved in whether a blood transfusion is required. The only problem that might arise is if the WORKER is a JW, in which case he or she might refuse to accept one. They are not directly prescribing, nor providing, blood transfusions.

Thanks for the clarification.

What this means is....not much, except that your example isn't a good one for the situation.

Good try, though---and if we didn't have the workman's compensation system that is entirely apart from direct insurance provided by employers, (and which is entirely about the workers) it would have been a puzzler.

This last sentence indicates that you did understand that I am intending to explore a principle rather than the details of US compensation law; and having understood the intention of my enquiry, you dodged it, as kayky recognised.

The principle you outline in your recent response to kayky, OTOH, is curious, in the context of the OP:

Your right to refuse to do something that is against your faith ALWAYS supersedes my right to make you do it--and frankly, I see absolutely no difference between, say.....my right to make you sing Christmas carols supersedes your right to refuse to sing them, even if you ARE the only singer in the county.

My right to learn to raise tomatoes upside down does NOT supersede your right to refuse to teach me.

My right to get birth control pills does not supersede your right to refuse to prescribe them, especially when I can get them elsewhere--and you won't prescribe them for anybody else, either.

It seems you consider the right to refuse to do something is the point at issue.
So: suppose a car-driver runs over a child, and then refuses to pay, either directly or through insurance, for surgical procedures that are 'against my religion'. Would that be legal? Should it be?
Or how about refusing to pay that proportion of taxes that is used for military forces? Or refusing to answer a draft?
Quakers, and others, have gone to jail, and even been executed, for refusing to take part in wars. This is the deal; (and this is the ideal, for people of both religious and political principle:) you stand by your faith, you recognise that your faith is in conflict with the law as it stands, you contest the law as far as you can, and meanwhile you take the consequences of defiance.
That seems to me, at least, the honest and principled approach; and it takes courage. To claim 'I should be allowed to disregard the law because it's against my religion' would be unreasonable. And although I am far from expert in the American Constitution, I am a long-time admirer; I'm sure the constitution upholds both your right to protest a law, and the state's right to arrest you for breaking that law. Am I right about that?

To apply all of this to the OP:
What is it that the legalisation of gay marriage will force you and your co-religionists to do, (as opposed to 'not do') that is against your faith; and how (do you suppose) would this enforcement be carried out in practice?

[dianaiad]

It seems you consider the right to refuse to do something is the point at issue.

Not quite, but I suppose that is part of it.

So: suppose a car-driver runs over a child, and then refuses to pay, either directly or through insurance, for surgical procedures that are 'against my religion'. Would that be legal? Should it be?

Your example of the JW's was slightly off. This is WAY off. When one gets into a car, (the driving of which is a privilege, not a right, since one's operation of a vehicle affects every other person one might encounter) one also agrees to operate by the rules of the road. All of them. That includes paying for the damage one causes---the way the person DAMAGED needs it. The only choice there, if one does not ever want to pay for care that is against one's religion, is to not drive in the first place.

I think you can see the differences in the situations? Catholics not wanting the government to directly force them to prescribe contraception or abortion services (that all must admit are not related to the jobs the employees are doing) against their religion is NOT the same thing as a JW, who applied for a driver's license, (and thus knows the rules) and causes injuries with his/her car that require blood transfusions. In that case, it is not HIS choice whether to offer transfusions; it's up to the person injured and his/her doctors.

The government wants to force Catholics to directly provide, and pay for, contraception and abortion services. Unlike the driver, THEY didn't cause any injury for which these things are the cure. Unlike the driver, who hands the money over to the victim (or his representatives) and has no responsibility for what that money is used for, the Catholics are expected to directly break their own doctrines and beliefs. Unlike the car crash victim, whose injuries are the result of the actions of the JW driver, women who work for the Catholics who are being coerced here are not only NOT the victims of Catholic action, they are demanding products from the Catholics in order to do something that is so against Catholic teaching that (in the case of abortion) causes instant excommunication.

The closest analogy I can think of (and from the Catholic POV, I don't imagine that this is too far off the mark), is to have the local police department required by the government to teach gun safety, marksmanship and body disposal techniques to the local branches of the Bloods and the Crips.

Whether you like or not, whether I agree with their stance or not, the reality is this....and take this VERY seriously...the government is attempting to force the Catholic church to directly provide things that, if a private Catholic did it, would result in excommunication.

Or how about refusing to pay that proportion of taxes that is used for military forces? Or refusing to answer a draft?

We all pay a proportion of our taxes to things we don't approve of. That's why we have elections.

Quakers, and others, have gone to jail, and even been executed, for refusing to take part in wars. This is the deal; (and this is the ideal, for people of both religious and political principle:) you stand by your faith, you recognise that your faith is in conflict with the law as it stands, you contest the law as far as you can, and meanwhile you take the consequences of defiance.

Yes....so...contesting the law is a bad thing? That's what the Catholics (and I) are doing.

That seems to me, at least, the honest and principled approach; and it takes courage. To claim 'I should be allowed to disregard the law because it's against my religion' would be unreasonable.

The law is unreasonable BECAUSE it attacks, quite directly, religious freedom.

No it doesn't attack mine, because (though abortion for anything but major health/life and death issues is considered to be a Very Bad Thing, using contraception is in no way the serious matter it is for Catholics) Mormons wouldn't have a problem complying with the law. Well, we'd have a problem, but not for THAT reason.

But if the government is allowed to do this to one religion, then what's going to keep it from doing this to everybody else, too?

And although I am far from expert in the American Constitution, I am a long-time admirer; I'm sure the constitution upholds both your right to protest a law, and the state's right to arrest you for breaking that law. Am I right about that?

Yep..I don't quite understand where you are going with this, though. Are you suggesting that the law is a good thing, and so is the protesting of it, but we shouldn't actually complain about it BECAUSE we have the right to complain about it?

To apply all of this to the OP:
What is it that the legalisation of gay marriage will force you and your co-religionists to do, (as opposed to 'not do') that is against your faith; and how (do you suppose) would this enforcement be carried out in practice?

Ah.

I can think of a couple of things that could....and would (because I know a few gay rights groups that are simply waiting; the lawsuits are written already) take us to court instantly. We would be sued for not allowing gay married couples to live in BYU married housing. We would be sued for not allowing gay married couples who have fulfilled all the requirements for a Temple Recommend to actually get one. We will be sued for not hiring gay married couples for positions requiring married couples.

People are already being sued for not wishing to participate in gay wedding ceremonies.

In fact, in any position in which 'married' is a requirement (when 'married' has always been defined as man/woman, and the beliefs are that same sex relationships CANNOT BE marriage BECAUSE they are not male/female), the lawsuits and penalties will fly thick and fast.

This isn't about whether gays should have the right to call themselves married...and even be married...according to THEIR beliefs. IT's not about civil rights that the government can assign, it's not about going to restaurants, or catering birthday parties. It's about what the religions deeply believe that marriage is, and who is, and who is not, married in the eyes of God according to THEIR beliefs.

It's like....

OK, I'm a Mormon. Neither the Catholics nor may Protestant groups think that we are Christians. I believe that I am.

I'm also a teacher who needs a job. There are several Christian schools in the area which are hiring; schools owned by the churches, run by them, held in adjoining buildings. They won't hire me because, well, they only hire Christians.

Now, if I were to take the same position that gays are taking, I would take these guys to court for hiring discrimination----and y'know what?

I'd lose. In fact, the suit would be thrown out before it got to a judge...and RIGHTLY SO. It doesn't matter what I think I am; it's their religion, it's their school, it's their belief system, and if they don't think I'm a Christian, then I'm not qualified to teach in their school.

What befuddles me more than anything else is this: the gay activists who agree that these schools have every right to refuse to hire someone they don't think is a Christian, but DO think that they have the right to force religions to recognize their marriages as marriages in the eyes of God.

Our first amendment was not written to protect those who agree with us, or those whose opinions and beliefs we approve. It was written to protect those with whom we disagree, and those of whom we disapprove, so that when THEY come to power, they cannot then oppress us in turn.


At least, that's the idea.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

What's weird about it? This is standard practice in most aspects of a job; requirements, benefits, what the employee pays for, what the employer pays for....

What's the difference between, say, knowing before you accept a job that you have to purchase your own work uniform, knowing that you will be required (at your own expense) to take classes to keep your credentials current, and knowing that the insurance provided by your employer isn't going to include birth control pills, or dental care, or plastic surgery?

Here's a hint.

There isn't any difference.

I get that, and part of the weirdness of course comes in with the way the American system is set up. The way I see it, what medical treatment I receive should be determined by my doctor. The idea that my doctor's recommendation can be vetoed by the religious beliefs of my employer is weird. The idea that other people's religious beliefs could determine what healthcare is available to me is weird. I'm glad that when I need to make medical decisions, Catholic doctrine never comes into it. I'm also glad that no one else in our healthcare system has their access to medical care limited by other people's religious beliefs.

Since when do you have the right to demand that an employer provide precisely what you want?

I suppose that's the problem you have when you get health insurance from your employer. Some people are going to be at the mercy of their employer's religious beliefs when it comes to their health.

[kayky]

WILL they?

I sure hope so.

I hope not. That will mean that the constitution will have been fractured. Not that such attacks upon it haven't tried before---nor that such haven't actually succeeded before, but this one?

This one's a biggee.

It's actually a simple matter. Do you deny half the population their right to healthcare to appease one religious group who isn't even asked to pay for it?

And no, the 'rights of women to adequate health care' do NOT outweigh the 'Catholics' complaint,' when women are free to find birth control pills elsewhere---and they most certainly are.

Only if they can afford to pay for it.

Your right to refuse to do something that is against your faith ALWAYS supersedes my right to make you do it--and frankly, I see absolutely no difference between, say.....my right to make you sing Christmas carols supersedes your right to refuse to sing them, even if you ARE the only singer in the county.

But Catholics are not being asked to do something against their faith. When you accept government money, you are doing so with the full knowledge that you are obligated to abide by the rules and with the full knowledge that rules often do change. The only complaint they have now is that they have to do business with companies that are offering other services that they don't agree with but don't have to pay for. If they sincerely believe that this is an imposition on their faith, they would do the right thing and stop taking public money. I hear that the Vatican has buckets of it.

My right to learn to raise tomatoes upside down does NOT supersede your right to refuse to teach me.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

My right to get birth control pills does not supersede your right to refuse to prescribe them, especially when I can get them elsewhere--and you won't prescribe them for anybody else, either.

If you work in the public sphere, then those rights certainly are superseded. And as to going elsewhere: where I grew up in southeastern Kentucky, we lived 30 miles from the nearest town. To this day it has only one drugstore.

As to government money--

I happen to believe that churches shouldn't take government money, and for this very reason; the government tends to want to tie entirely irrelevant strings to such funds; it's a very underhanded method of shredding the first amendment. However, that's a matter of self-protection, because the government IS dishonorable in those things. What SHOULD happen is that those grants and moneys should be given without such irrelevant requirements, never mind the times (as it is here with the Catholic hospitals) that the government hands over money under one set of rules, then changes the rules LATER. THAT is underhanded, unconscionable and just plain dishonest.

It is not the least bit dishonest to require that takers of public funds not discriminate or force their religious beliefs on others. The Catholic church went into it with their eyes wide open.

Finally, grants given to, say, purchase instruments for an operating room should have rules relating ONLY to the use of those instruments. Using such grants as a way to coerce compliance in areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with those instruments should not be allowed.

I don't see how this would make any difference.

But they will be, because people like you figure that yoYur opinion about what is 'good' and 'right' is more important than anybody else's--and so any method y'all can use to make others toe the line is perfectly fine.

Of course I think that I am right and you are wrong. Otherwise we wouldn't be debating.

The problem is---that's going to back fire and bite y'all square in the posterior. Given history, you should KNOW that. It's not like this is new.

I don't know what history you are referring to.

It didn't backfire when restaurant owners were told they couldn't refuse service based on race.

It didn't backfire when it was decided that separate but equal schools were not equal at all.

It didn't backfire when private businesses and private schools were told they had to be handicapped accessible.

Need I go on?

The same arguments you are making now were made then.

[dianaiad]

What's weird about it? This is standard practice in most aspects of a job; requirements, benefits, what the employee pays for, what the employer pays for....

What's the difference between, say, knowing before you accept a job that you have to purchase your own work uniform, knowing that you will be required (at your own expense) to take classes to keep your credentials current, and knowing that the insurance provided by your employer isn't going to include birth control pills, or dental care, or plastic surgery?

Here's a hint.

There isn't any difference.

I get that, and part of the weirdness of course comes in with the way the American system is set up. The way I see it, what medical treatment I receive should be determined by my doctor.

And so it should be.

However, if your doctor is, say, a neurosurgeon, and if his religious beliefs forbid him from helping someone to get an abortion, should he be forced to provide one?

Or...let's put it this way: do you have the right to go to a Kosher delicatessen and force them to serve you a ham and swiss cheese sandwich?

If you want the ham sandwich, you don't go to a Kosher deli.

If you want contraception and/or an abortion, you don't go to a Catholic doctor.

Seems simple enough to me.


......................................and if you want to work for the Catholic church, then you can't expect them to violate their own doctrine and principles because you don't agree with their religion.

The idea that my doctor's recommendation can be vetoed by the religious beliefs of my employer is weird.

ER....that's not what's happening. Doctor's aren't being vetoed when they prescribe contraceptives...take that prescription and go to someone who will fill it. No problem; you can probably get it for free, or a greatly reduced price, from non-Catholic sources.

In fact, your position is ironic....since 'vetoing the doctor' is EXACTLY what the government is doing TO the Catholic doctors, forcing them to prescribe contraception when doing so is against their beliefs; forcing them to provide abortion services when according to their beliefs, anybody who does so is instantly excommunicated.

Do you see the difference?

The idea that other people's religious beliefs could determine what healthcare is available to me is weird.

No, it's not determining what health care is available to you. It is simply determining what THEY will offer, and what THEY will pay for. You can go elsewhere. There's no law saying that you MUST get ALL your health care from Catholics, after all.

I'm glad that when I need to make medical decisions, Catholic doctrine never comes into it.

Of course it doesn't. You aren't Catholic, and you are not employed by the Catholic church. As to that, even if you were, you have the right to go get the health care you feel you need. You just don't have the right to make the Catholics pay for things that are that deeply against their beliefs.

Question: you hire a plumber. He shows up with a bible in one hand and a spanner in the other--takes your money and then insists that before he will fix the leak in your kitchen, you MUST accept Jesus into your heart and be 'born again,' right there and then. If you don't, he's leaving WITH your money and without fixing the sink.

Does he have the right to do that?

Or do YOU have the right to determine what goes on in your house?

I'm also glad that no one else in our healthcare system has their access to medical care limited by other people's religious beliefs.

You have this backward. Nobody is limiting health care; contraception and abortion services are available....it's quite the other way around. Catholics are not forcing women NOT to get contraception/abortion services. They simply don't want to pay for it or provide it themselves.

Now, I have a fondness for oleander; it grows very well here, loves the sun, doesn't need a lot of water, flowers beautifully most of the year. Makes a GREAT privacy hedge/fence. I know better than to idly pick a leaf and chomp on it, though, nor would I make a tea from the flowers. I can think of easier ways to commit suicide. Y'see, oleander is, while being very pretty and growing very well here, is, if not the most poisonous plant in the world, certainly in the running for that dubious honor. Do I have the right to hold a gun to my neighbor's head and force her to pay for the oleander hedge between our yards, in spite of the fact that she has toddlers and animals who just MIGHT try to eat an oleander leaf? One leaf will kill an adult.

From the Catholic POV, that is precisely what the government is trying to do; force them to plant oleander and pay for it.

Now I can go get oleander...it's a common and easily obtained plant. It's inexpensive, too--I guarantee you that you won't be able to walk half a block in my city without seeing at least one oleander bush. Nobody is stopping me from going to a nursery or WalMart or wherever and getting oleander. Nobody is stopping me from planting it. It's cheap, too.

I do not have the right to force my neighbor to pay for it.

Since when do you have the right to demand that an employer provide precisely what you want?

I suppose that's the problem you have when you get health insurance from your employer. Some people are going to be at the mercy of their employer's religious beliefs when it comes to their health.

If you know that going in, then you can make your health care decisions accordingly. That's the thing about the first amendment. YOU DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT to make someone else abide by your religious beliefs. You don't have the right to force an employer to break his religious beliefs to accommodate yours.

He doesn't have the right to force you to abide by his, either---but that's not what the Catholics are doing. They aren't firing women who take birth control pills. They just don't want to have to pay for 'em.

Seems fair enough to me.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I get that, and part of the weirdness of course comes in with the way the American system is set up. The way I see it, what medical treatment I receive should be determined by my doctor.

And so it should be.

However, if your doctor is, say, a neurosurgeon, and if his religious beliefs forbid him from helping someone to get an abortion, should he be forced to provide one?

Or...let's put it this way: do you have the right to go to a Kosher delicatessen and force them to serve you a ham and swiss cheese sandwich?

If you want the ham sandwich, you don't go to a Kosher deli.

If you want contraception and/or an abortion, you don't go to a Catholic doctor.

Seems simple enough to me.


......................................and if you want to work for the Catholic church, then you can't expect them to violate their own doctrine and principles because you don't agree with their religion.

That's what's great about systems like ours, I don't have to worry about the religion of my doctor or my insurance provider.

The idea that my doctor's recommendation can be vetoed by the religious beliefs of my employer is weird.

ER....that's not what's happening. Doctor's aren't being vetoed when they prescribe contraceptives...take that prescription and go to someone who will fill it. No problem; you can probably get it for free, or a greatly reduced price, from non-Catholic sources.

In fact, your position is ironic....since 'vetoing the doctor' is EXACTLY what the government is doing TO the Catholic doctors, forcing them to prescribe contraception when doing so is against their beliefs; forcing them to provide abortion services when according to their beliefs, anybody who does so is instantly excommunicated.

Do you see the difference?

Under your system, if I need expensive surgery, and my insurance is provided by Christian Scientists, I'm out of luck. I prefer a system that avoids such unfortunate potentialities.

If your religion prevents you from doing a job, you probably shouldn't be doing that job.

The idea that other people's religious beliefs could determine what healthcare is available to me is weird.

No, it's not determining what health care is available to you. It is simply determining what THEY will offer, and what THEY will pay for. You can go elsewhere. There's no law saying that you MUST get ALL your health care from Catholics, after all.

Yes, you do have other options under your system such as unemployment, I am aware of this. Like I said, having your healthcare options tied up with employment and the religious beliefs of other people makes for a weird system.

I'm glad that when I need to make medical decisions, Catholic doctrine never comes into it.

Of course it doesn't. You aren't Catholic, and you are not employed by the Catholic church. As to that, even if you were, you have the right to go get the health care you feel you need. You just don't have the right to make the Catholics pay for things that are that deeply against their beliefs.

Question: you hire a plumber. He shows up with a bible in one hand and a spanner in the other--takes your money and then insists that before he will fix the leak in your kitchen, you MUST accept Jesus into your heart and be 'born again,' right there and then. If you don't, he's leaving WITH your money and without fixing the sink.

Does he have the right to do that?

Or do YOU have the right to determine what goes on in your house?

But if I was a non-Catholic who was employed by the Catholic church, what healthcare options are available to me are determined by Catholic doctrine (and whatever I can afford myself). Hence you have a system where other people's religious beliefs can influence what healthcare is available to me.

I'm afraid I am not understanding what your plumber analogy is meant to address.

I'm also glad that no one else in our healthcare system has their access to medical care limited by other people's religious beliefs.

You have this backward. Nobody is limiting health care; contraception and abortion services are available....it's quite the other way around. Catholics are not forcing women NOT to get contraception/abortion services. They simply don't want to pay for it or provide it themselves.

Now, I have a fondness for oleander; it grows very well here, loves the sun, doesn't need a lot of water, flowers beautifully most of the year. Makes a GREAT privacy hedge/fence. I know better than to idly pick a leaf and chomp on it, though, nor would I make a tea from the flowers. I can think of easier ways to commit suicide. Y'see, oleander is, while being very pretty and growing very well here, is, if not the most poisonous plant in the world, certainly in the running for that dubious honor. Do I have the right to hold a gun to my neighbor's head and force her to pay for the oleander hedge between our yards, in spite of the fact that she has toddlers and animals who just MIGHT try to eat an oleander leaf? One leaf will kill an adult.

From the Catholic POV, that is precisely what the government is trying to do; force them to plant oleander and pay for it.

Now I can go get oleander...it's a common and easily obtained plant. It's inexpensive, too--I guarantee you that you won't be able to walk half a block in my city without seeing at least one oleander bush. Nobody is stopping me from going to a nursery or WalMart or wherever and getting oleander. Nobody is stopping me from planting it. It's cheap, too.

I do not have the right to force my neighbor to pay for it.

It seems to me that if your religious beliefs prevent you from providing healthcare, you should not be in the healthcare providing business. Some forms of contraception may be cheap, but others aren't. Surgery is even more expensive, yet you support a system where insurance providers don't have to pay for it if it violates their beliefs. This strikes me as problematic, and I again count myself fortunate to live under a system where healthcare is equally available to all regardless of the religious beliefs of other people. I don't have to worry whether my doctor's religion approves of the healthcare I need. I don't have to worry whether the religious beliefs of my potential employer reflect my healthcare needs. It's just between me and my doctor.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 104:

...
It doesn't matter what I think I am; it's their religion, it's their school, it's their belief system, and if they don't think I'm a Christian, then I'm not qualified to teach in their school.

But it ain't just their nation.

What befuddles me more than anything else is this: the gay activists who agree that these schools have every right to refuse to hire someone they don't think is a Christian, but DO think that they have the right to force religions to recognize their marriages as marriages in the eyes of God.

Please cite instances where gay folks have stormed churches demanding folks do such.

Otherwise, I must chalk such statements up to paranoia.

Our first amendment was not written to protect those who agree with us, or those whose opinions and beliefs we approve. It was written to protect those with whom we disagree, and those of whom we disapprove, so that when THEY come to power, they cannot then oppress us in turn.

And don't it beat all, now that Christians are in power, owing to their majority, they oppress homosexuals by refusing to allow the government, at Federal and State levels, to allow homosexuals the very thing these Christians are so proud about themselves.

I contend those who oppose homosexual marriages are indeed paranoid - scared their god's gonna get upset, 'parently owing to that whole Adam & Eve fiasco, and strike fire and brimstone, and all manner of volcanoes and earthquakes, hurricanes and lightnin' and thunder, and all that...

Simply 'cause a chick kissed another chick. And by all that's holy, don't let it be two hot chicks! And God forbid the dude find out I gave 'em each some cocaine to do it.

Or simply because these Christians, and these Christians alone, know what it means to be married!

Frankly, I hate that god and all he stands for if that's his attitude. He ain't welcome in my house, and them that're upset I wouldn't let him in, they ain't even welcome on the property.

[dianaiad]

WILL they?

I sure hope so.

I hope not. That will mean that the constitution will have been fractured. Not that such attacks upon it haven't tried before---nor that such haven't actually succeeded before, but this one?

This one's a biggee.

It's actually a simple matter. Do you deny half the population their right to healthcare to appease one religious group who isn't even asked to pay for it?

HALF?

Would you care to show me the statistics about how half of all American workers are employed by the Catholic church, in a situation where healthcare is provided directly by the church?

While you are at it, would you care to show me how those employed by the Catholic church are forbidden to get the healthcare they want from anyone ELSE?

And no, the 'rights of women to adequate health care' do NOT outweigh the 'Catholics' complaint,' when women are free to find birth control pills elsewhere---and they most certainly are.

Only if they can afford to pay for it.

Birth control is simply not that expensive. Shoot, you can get them from Target for $4 per month, and from Wal-Mart for $9.00 per month. That's lower than some insurance company's prescription drug co-pay.

So puleeze don't give me the 'what if she can't pay for it' song and dance. That's not even slightly an issue. She picks a non-Catholic doctor who will write the prescription, she goes to Target....and she's out a whoppin' $4 per month....or $48 PER YEAR for birth control. Less than 14 cents a day. The poorest women will pay more for that a year in shampoo and hairconditioning--store brand.

Your right to refuse to do something that is against your faith ALWAYS supersedes my right to make you do it--and frankly, I see absolutely no difference between, say.....my right to make you sing Christmas carols supersedes your right to refuse to sing them, even if you ARE the only singer in the county.

But Catholics are not being asked to do something against their faith.

YES THEY ARE! Aren't you paying attention?

According to canon law, anyone who helps secure an abortion is INSTANTLY excommunicated. The doctor is, the woman is....anybody who helps pay for it is, politicians who vote for it are. By forcing the CAtholics to directly pay for contraception and abortion, you are forcing them to commit a sin that excommunicates them as quickly as if they had attacked the Pope or hit a Bishop.

When you accept government money, you are doing so with the full knowledge that you are obligated to abide by the rules and with the full knowledge that rules often do change.

No. You aren't. That is, if you accept government money, you need to accept the rules in place at the time the funds are obtained, but to be forced to abide arbitrarily changed rules?

No. That's NEVER acceptable.

In Illinois, CAtholic Charities was told that if they wanted to continue to get government funds, they had to abide by the government rules regarding gay couples and adoption. Catholic Charities refused...and funding was withdrawn, and Catholic Charities was pretty much disbanded. That's fine, because the money CC got was given for adoption services.

However, the funds Catholic hospitals get are not related to hiring and insurance, the rules were changed mid stream, and there is no 'if you want the money you will do this' choice. The choice being given is 'you do this.' Period. The Catholics are not being told that they can refuse government funding and keep their beliefs. They are being told that it doesn't matter; funds and grants or no funds and grants, they have to directly pay for, and provide, contraception and abortion services to their employees.

If the Catholics lose this, they will probably, simply, close their facilities. Gee, I wonder what THAT is going to do for the women who worked for them?

The only complaint they have now is that they have to do business with companies that are offering other services that they don't agree with but don't have to pay for.

Kayky, I agree with some of the things you post elsewhere, but dang, woman--you aren't paying attention to what's happening. You are swallowing the Kool-aid.

That is NOT the complaint. The complaint is that they do not want to have to directly provide, and pay for, services that are against their religion. Obama's "compromise" only works for those institutions that contract their insurance to third parties, like Kaiser Permanente or Red Cross/Blue Shield. Many of those institutions, however, SELF INSURE. This means that those costs must be paid for, and offered directly by, the Catholic church. Obama wasn't going to make any exceptions for self insured institutions, which rather destroyed the whole 'we aren't going to make you pay for it' thing.

But....you've been TOLD this, many times.

There are 12, count 'em, TWELVE Catholic institutions joining in the lawsuit against Obama over this, and their issue is the same; Obama's administration is wrecking the establishment clause by forcing a religion to do something that is fundamentally against it's beliefs and doctrines, because those beliefs and doctrines don't fit with the beliefs and doctrines the government thinks acceptable.

I think that if Obama had allowed exceptions for self-insured institutions, it would have been fine, but he didn't.

......and THAT is the problem, and why this conversation fits with the 'fear of gay marriage' topic begun by the OP. It is so obvious and egregious an example of what the government can and will do in order to force it's opinions regarding what good little religions must think and believe upon everybody that I am amazed that y'all can't SEE it.

As for me, I don't give a good flying fig whether gays get married or not. I would, frankly, like to see them be able to do so--in their OWN faiths, and to get all the civil rights every other married couple has, who are married in the eyes of the government. My 'fear of gay marriage' isn't a fear of gay marriage; they aren't hurting me. My fear is of the government and what it can, and DOES, do to religions and beliefs that aren't politically correct enough.

If they sincerely believe that this is an imposition on their faith, they would do the right thing and stop taking public money. I hear that the Vatican has buckets of it.

Kayke, with all due respect.....this isn't about public money. In fact, it turns out that this mandate from the government isn't tied to public funds. Catholics could refuse to take a single penny---and the government is STILL insisting that they comply. Really....aren't you paying any attention to the facts of this case at all?

My right to learn to raise tomatoes upside down does NOT supersede your right to refuse to teach me.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Not a thing. But it has a great deal to do with religious freedom in the USA.

My right to get birth control pills does not supersede your right to refuse to prescribe them, especially when I can get them elsewhere--and you won't prescribe them for anybody else, either.

If you work in the public sphere, then those rights certainly are superseded. And as to going elsewhere: where I grew up in southeastern Kentucky, we lived 30 miles from the nearest town. To this day it has only one drugstore.

.........and you were asking ME what this had to do with the 'price of eggs in china?"

Easy fix, by the way. Send for a three month's supply of birth control pills from Target. It'll cost you $12 plus shipping. If they charge shipping...I'm not certain that they do for prescriptions.

As to government money--

I happen to believe that churches shouldn't take government money, and for this very reason; the government tends to want to tie entirely irrelevant strings to such funds; it's a very underhanded method of shredding the first amendment. However, that's a matter of self-protection, because the government IS dishonorable in those things. What SHOULD happen is that those grants and moneys should be given without such irrelevant requirements, never mind the times (as it is here with the Catholic hospitals) that the government hands over money under one set of rules, then changes the rules LATER. THAT is underhanded, unconscionable and just plain dishonest.

It is not the least bit dishonest to require that takers of public funds not discriminate or force their religious beliefs on others. The Catholic church went into it with their eyes wide open.

Yes...and when compliance is linked to public funds, as it was with the Illinois adoption problem, you would be right. However...

Taking funds under one set of rules, then changing those rules midstream?

UNFAIR.

Certainly the government doesn't let anybody else do this, and sure as your born, if the Catholics took money earmarked for surgical instruments and just decided to use it for payroll, all hell would have broken loose. That sort of thing is incredibly illegal.

So how come the GOVERNMENT gets to change the rules later?

................and then, of course, there's the part about how it wouldn't help the Catholics to stop taking government funds or even to pay back the funds already taken; the government is STILL insisting on this. The only alternative, if they don't win this lawsuit, is to close the facilities down. Hospitals. Universities (like Notre Dame...).

Yep, that will get all those employees the health care they need, won't it?

Finally, grants given to, say, purchase instruments for an operating room should have rules relating ONLY to the use of those instruments. Using such grants as a way to coerce compliance in areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with those instruments should not be allowed.

I don't see how this would make any difference.

But they will be, because people like you figure that yoYur opinion about what is 'good' and 'right' is more important than anybody else's--and so any method y'all can use to make others toe the line is perfectly fine.

Of course I think that I am right and you are wrong. Otherwise we wouldn't be debating.

THAT'S not the problem, Kayky. Yes, I think that I'm right and you are wrong. However, unlike you, I don't think I have the right to force you to see it my way, or at least behave as if you see things my way.

Or rather, I think that the Catholics should offer contraception and sterilization services, at least to those who don't belong to the church. My own faith does. I think that their doctrine is incorrect, and that they should change it.

However,, I think that they have a RIGHT to be wrong. It's not my doctrine, it's theirs, and they have the absolute right to abide by it. I do not believe that the government has any right to make them change because *I* don't agree with them.

See the difference?

The problem is---that's going to back fire and bite y'all square in the posterior. Given history, you should KNOW that. It's not like this is new.

I don't know what history you are referring to.

ANY history. Pick one.

It didn't backfire when restaurant owners were told they couldn't refuse service based on race.

Not comparable.

How about...when the Catholics told the protestants that they had no right to believe as they wished...and their rule was backed by the governments. Then, when the power changed so that the Protestants had the power, it was the Catholics who were persecuted.

How about...When England didn't like the way the Puritans believed, they were imprisoned and finally left the country and came over here, where they promptly forbade any religious freedom but their own.

Or when the Catholics did the same thing in South America.

or the Baptists did it to the Mormons.

Or the Puritans did it to the Quakers, and everybody did it to the Shakers....

Your example is a strawman and has nothing at all to do with religious freedom. Remember; those restaurants were discriminating against certain races--but they WERE offering services to others. Catholics don't want to have to pay for contraception for anybody at all. It's not discrimination if you don't offer a service to anybody, no matter WHO is looking.

...........just like....it's not discrimination for a photographer to refuse to photograph an underwater wedding for a black couple, if he doesn't do underwater weddings for anybody else, either.

It is not discrimination for Catholics to refuse to provide contraception and sterilization services to women, because they don't provide it to anybody; men, either.

Try using an example that makes sense.

It didn't backfire when it was decided that separate but equal schools were not equal at all.

Another strawman argument.

Tell me; in order for your example to be appropriate, the Catholics would have to be offering contraception/sterilisation services to someone, and only discriminating against SOME.

That's not what's happening though, is it?

A more accurate analogy would be....I teach English. That's it. I don't teach math.

To anybody. I simply do not offer that service. How is that discriminatory?

Catholics offer health care. They simply do not offer contraception/sterilisation. To anybody. Same thing.

It didn't backfire when private businesses and private schools were told they had to be handicapped accessible.

That, again, is not an applicable analogy. A more accurate one would be: a private business sells hang gliders. It doesn't matter WHO comes in to the store, that business isn't going to sell that customer an Obsidian case with three pre-installed cooling fans...because they don't sell computer cases to ANYBODY.

Need I go on?[/quote]

No, because you haven't found a single example yet that is applicable to the situation.

The same arguments you are making now were made then.

No. They were not. Not even close.