The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Freedom of conscience at risk in USA > Comments

Freedom of conscience at risk in USA : Comments

By Mishka Góra, published 17/2/2012

Founded by refugees from religious persecution the US now risks turning religion into a matter for the state.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Great article. Freedom of conscience/ religion will be the issue of the 21st century in the West as the 'progressives' gain more and more power through the ever-increasing size and scope of government.The idea of a citizenry possessing different beliefs cannot co-exist with the progressive doctrine of equality, so religious freedom needs to be severely curtailed, as we are beginning to see now, sadly.
Posted by progressive pat, Friday, 17 February 2012 11:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*It is a totalitarian enforcement of an extreme feminism that sees children as something to be prevented at a woman's will and at someone else's expense.*

Err hang on there, why should children not be prevented at a
woman's will?

Payment of healthcare in the US for employees is a bit like paying
superannuation in Australia. It is part of workers wages, ie they
worked for it. It should not be up the employer to decide how
the super fund invests its money, as the money belongs to the employee.
Similarly it should not be up to the dictates of the
employer, to dictate to employees, what kind of birth control they
should be practising. That equates to trying to force your dogma
onto others, which is quite unreasonable.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 February 2012 11:58:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few points, Yabby.

1. The super fund does have the right to decide how to invest your money. You choose a package, but ultimately the fund decides what's on offer in that package.

2. The HHS is supposed to be about preventive health care. Contraception and sterilisation prevent pregnancy or cause an abortion in the early stages. Neither pregnancy nor the children it entails are diseases to be prevented.

3. When the existence of a child is prevented by an abortifacient medication, the father's will ought to be a consideration, not just the mother's.

4. An employer offers a job with certain conditions and remuneration. It is not the role of the government to insist that every employer in the USA pays its employees in birth control. For starters, this discriminates against men (who are not being paid in condoms even though that could constitute preventive health care), not to mention women who don't use birth control, women who don't have sex, women who have passed menopause... (I think you get the picture.)

5. If women want the freedom to decide what birth control to use, then all they have to do is take a prescription to the chemist and pay for it themselves. Catholic employers are not trying to dictate what birth control women use. They don't want to be involved at all. It is the US government doing the dictating. The employers just want pay their employees in the usual manner and let their employees sort out how they go about having sex.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Friday, 17 February 2012 12:37:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few points Mishka.

The super fund certainly has the right to decide where it invests
its money. If the employee is not satisified, they can move their
money to another super fund. The point is, its not up to the
employer.

Who said that health care is only about preventative health care?
In fact most health care is about treating people with all sorts
of afflictions, be they lifestyle, genetics, environment etc. Family
planning is part of healthcare, like it or not.

Women having children that they don't want or cannot afford, would
cause serious stress and indeed be damaging to their health.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 February 2012 12:46:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An employer should not have to offer or pay for anything that goes against his conscience.

The Obama administration has said it's about preventive health care. This what we're talking about, the HHS's Affordable Care Act. I didn't make it up, the Obama government did. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html

No one's suggesting women should have children they don't want or can't afford. You're making gigantic leaps, Yabby. Women have access to contraception already - the only change is that employers now have to pay for it. That's the issue. No one has said there should be any reduction in availability of contraception. And if the Obama government is so concerned about women's health, why is that pregnancy isn't covered? I think it's rather stressful on women knowing that the government will mandate a free sterilisation for you but not even help you with the costs of having a child you want. And given that the Pill may increase the risk of breast cancer I think contraception has more potential damage to a woman's health than the cost of having to purchase contraception herself. Last time I checked, paying for a prescription wasn't a health risk!
Posted by Mishka Gora, Friday, 17 February 2012 1:02:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Women having children that they don't want or cannot afford, would
cause serious stress and indeed be damaging to their health"

Not as damaging as having an abortion (see postabortion syndrome). No one regrets going through with the pregnancy because you get to look down at a smiling face.

But, contraception isn't even the issue as it's cheap and available everywhere. The issue is that Obama and the left get their thrills out of telling the Church what to do. Even Rick Warren who gave the inugural invocation for Obama has promised civil disobedience if Churches are forced to commit mortal sin by supplying abortion pills.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290654/rick-warren-vs-hhs-mandate-rather-go-jail-cave-kathryn-jean-lopez

That's shows the extent to which violations of religious liberty are viewed as 'out-of-the-mainstream'.
Posted by progressive pat, Friday, 17 February 2012 1:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Miska
Contraception is part of health care. Why is this so controversial? The New Testament is full of looking after the poor and unfortunate and having compassion. It is not a debate about the merits of contraception, health insurance or viagra. I think that the more churches stray into this area the less christian and the more perverse they seem. This is especially so as the hierarchy of the catholic church has cover up the horrific sexual crimes against children and adults by priests.
Posted by lillian, Friday, 17 February 2012 1:29:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Progressive Pat,
You state that no one regrets going through with a pregnancy. I grew up in an era where choices were limited and went to school with people who were told by their mothers that they had ruined their lives by being born. How horrific would that be?

I have a friend who is catholic and got married the first time as a baby was on the way. The marriage didn't last and he left behind 2 kids. He repartnered and said it is totally different situation when you decide to have kids and therefore are willing put yourself out for them. It makes the marital relationship totally different as well.

There is an infantile discussion around what being a mother is really like. People like PP assume it is all fluffiness and motherly love. In reality it is an extremely demanding and difficult but of course has its rewards. It should be a relationship willingly entered into.
Posted by lillian, Friday, 17 February 2012 1:51:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mishga I'll agree with you in the situations where the churches and religious organisations are not getting special treatment (tax and rates breaks or funding to subsidise their activities). Where churches choose to hit drink at the public funding trough then they should be subject to the consequences.

I've also got concerns about government programs. I'd prefer the government to butt out and leave individuals with more control over their own income and choices rather than tax then redistribute some of that.

Put some stuff in place to help genuine crisis situations and leave the rest of us to get on with our own lives.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 17 February 2012 2:15:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Lillian,

You don't understand the events that have transpired, the HHS are trying to tell churches what to do, i.e. supply contraception to staff, and thus, break their conscience. The church is not straying into this area at all, the bishops want to let staff make their own reproductive health decisions, as was the case until this decision.

Look up a chronology of events regards this, and all will be revealed.
Posted by progressive pat, Friday, 17 February 2012 3:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Progressive Pat,

Try watching this debate about the issue:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/8/as_contraceptives_rule_enters_gop_race

As Jon O'Brien of Catholics for Choice says:

"It’s clear to me that what’s going on here really is that the bishops are looking to have their cake and eat it. They actually want to run hospitals and schools, very often taking taxpayer dollars to do that, but they want to be exempted from the same rules as everybody else. The idea that an employer could actually determine what you do in your personal life, if you use birth control or not, by virtue of blocking your access to insurance coverage is really outrageous and very un-American."

I do not think this is a matter of conscience as if the Bishops and others in the Catholic Church had any conscience they would not try and prevent women from looking after their health.
Posted by lillian, Friday, 17 February 2012 4:13:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*An employer should not have to offer or pay for anything that goes against his conscience*

In that case the employer would be unable to pay wages, in case
employees bought something which is against his conscience.

Fact is family planning is part of healthcare and I don't see why
Catholic employers should be treated differently to other employers.
HMOs do deals with pharma companies, meaning much cheaper contraception
over all. That is a benefit to those who use it. Nobody is mandating
the compulsory use of contraception. Feel free to cross your legs
for Jesus, if you think that it will get you to heaven.

* I think contraception has more potential damage to a woman's health than the cost of having to purchase contraception herself*

Perhaps you need to let each woman make her own decision, because
frankly it is none of the employers business.

*No one regrets going through with the pregnancy because you get to look down at a smiling face.*

Once again, that is up to the individual to decide, not up to me or
you or religious dogma, which is for the religious and their free
choice. Fact is the abortion rate of Catholics is about the same
as the rest of the community, so I don't think that most practising
Catholics take Vatican bleatings about family planning, all too
seriously.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 February 2012 4:29:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Extremely important. Thank you Mishka. You are a must read author IMO.

"We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens because of their religious beliefs. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. All that has been built up over so many years in our Catholic institutions should not be taken away by the stroke of an administrator’s pen." Francis Cardinal George

Genealogy of Leviathan http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/community-and-liberty-or-individualism-and-statism/
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 17 February 2012 5:08:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL,

The court picked on a soft target.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when they tell an Imam he has to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.

This should be most entertaining.

:-)
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 17 February 2012 6:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ISSUE:

The "gay marriage" issue appears to refer to a 2007 case.

See:

Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html

The question before the court was whether Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association could retain its exemption from property taxes if it declined to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. As a private organisation paying the same taxes as anyone else the UMC could maintain its ban on same sex marriages.

I question the wisdom of removing UMC's tax exemption over this issue but there is an old story about he who pays the piper...

CATHOLIC CHURCH ISSUE:

It pays healthcare providers cover contraception free of charge because that is cheaper than paying for pregnancies so there is no direct or indirect cost to the Catholic Church. Catholic employees may, if they so wish, decline to take advantage of this offer.

I think most Australians would agree that employers should not be interfering in employees' private medical matters in the first place. Since the Catholic Church does not have to contribute to anything that goes against its doctrine and since Catholic employees are not being coerced into using contraception I'm not sure where the problem lies.

I think the bigger issue is that healthcare provision should not be linked to employment in the first place.

CONCLUSION

This article fails to make the case that the US is becoming a totalitarian state. In fact it seems to be just a teeny bit misleading.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 17 February 2012 6:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the State trying to play God again. Obviously blind to the destruction it has caused in millions of lives.
Posted by runner, Friday, 17 February 2012 7:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer, I am referring to a case that was decided by Judge Solomon Metzger on January 12, 2012 (but which occurred in 2007). The actual court decision addresses the matter of Ocean Grove's tax status (which is a past matter). Its tax status is only relevant in that the venue was open to the public, which I did not dispute. The case in question was not about tax status, but about whether the Law Against Discrimination was violated. My argument stands.

As to where there the problem lies, allow me to direct to a letter by a large number of scholars on the issue (or else I'll run over the word limit): http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/02/10/statement-by-religious-scholars-on-contraceptive-coverage-policy-change/
I agree with you that the link of healthcare provision to employment is also an issue, one which if solved could also prevent the current issue re. conscience.

lillian, I agree it isn't a debate about contraception, etc. - it's Yabby who keeps going on about it. Contraception is widely available, often for free, and no one is trying to change that. No one is trying to prevent women from looking after their health. The issue is that the government has ordered that employers pay for contraception on their employees behalf and Catholic employers (amongst others) object to this for various reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that the Pill (which is most common) is an abortifacient - i.e. it doesn't prevent pregnancy, it actually aborts the embryo in its very early stages.

Yabby, Catholic employers don't give a hoot what an employee does with their money - it's theirs. It's about what happens with the employers' money, their responsibility, their consciences. And it is a woman's decision, which is why she should decide by actually requesting and paying for it, not expecting it on a platter at someone else's expense by default.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Friday, 17 February 2012 8:06:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Mishka, if Jehovahs Witnesses employers decide that they won't
fund any operations involving blood transfusions, should we accept
this as their religious right? What about employees who are not
JWs?

Healthcare and its provision has to be standardised. Modern family
planning is part of that. As Steven Meyer notes, it most likely
won't even cost the church any money, as it could well be to the
HMOs advantage.

Nobody is suggesting that anyone be coerced into using modern
family planning, simply that it should be part of provided health
care. If the church is so convinced of its dogma, it is free to
preach to its employees, if they will put up with that.

Employees have actually worked for the money that goes to paying
for their healthcare, so the church is providing nothing for free.

If the Obama Govt does not stand firm on this, they will have
to agree to the claims of every US religious cult, about what kind
of medical treatment their employees should or should not receive.

It is frankly none of the employers business. Healthcare is not
given to them out of kindness, but as part of their salary package.
They worked for it, its their decision
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 February 2012 8:31:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has anybody considered what Catholic women think about this? While 100% of Catholic priests in America would probably deny ever having used contraceptives, a recent Guttmacher Institute survey reported that "98 percent of "sexually experienced" Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives and 87 percent of 'sexually active' Catholic women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant are currently using some form of birth control." (http://www.christianpost.com/news/white-house-press-corps-cite-faulty-catholic-birth-control-statistic-69564/)
Posted by GlenC, Friday, 17 February 2012 8:55:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mishka Gora,

See:

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2012/01/nj-administrative-law-judge-find-ocean-grove-violated-state-law-against-discrimination-in-civil-unio.html

>>Judge Metzger had first to consider whether the Boardwalk Pavilion was a "place of public accommodation" under the New Jersey LAD. This task was simplified by Ocean Grove's decision back in 1989 to apply for a "Green Acres" real-estate tax exemption for the area that includes the Pavilion. Under New Jersey law, a "Green Acres" exemption may be granted for private property that is opened to the public for recreational use without restriction.>>

In other words UMC is trying to have it both ways.

It wants the favourable tax status associated with being "private property that is opened to the public for recreational use without restriction" without actually being private property open to the public without restriction.

Now I think the law as it stands is unwise. But at the same time it seems a bit over the top to say the USA is drifting into totalitarianism and that freedom of conscience is at risk on this basis.

All UMC needs to do is get its tax status changed. Once it pays the same taxes as private property owners it is free to treat its property as private which would include the right to bar its use for gay marriages.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 17 February 2012 10:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Credulous GlenC. People like you vote in tyrants. http://tofspot.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/post-script.html
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Saturday, 18 February 2012 6:54:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, birth control/sterilisation is a product/service, not an employee right. If an employee wants to purchase it, they can. The employer should not be forced to do so for them. Same goes for JWs, Jews, whatever. No one forces you to work for a Catholic/religious employer, and if you look at the employment process, e.g. at http://www.diocese-sacramento.org/diocese/lay_personnel/lay_personnel_forms.html and the PRE-application statement, you will see that it is clearly stated that non-Catholic employees must "share the Church's vision" and that this includes a rejection of artificial contraception. Standardising health care does not necessitate employer funding. Employers decide what's in a salary package, not the government. If Americans believe contraception is a free entitlement perhaps they should elect a socialist government. Even Australia doesn't provide free contraception.

stevenlmeyer, a wedding is not recreation, it's a formal civil or religious ceremony. Ocean Grove was open to the public without restriction for recreation, thus the tax status. OG was not trying to have it both ways. Why shouldn't it be open to the public for weddings with the restriction that they are weddings that the UMC recognises? Being open to the public doesn't make it public property, and the tax status related to recreation, not to weddings. Ocean Grove is no longer able to offer its facilities as a wedding venue, and that is a result of the LAD. Bad luck to all those other couples who wanted to hire it - it seems if a homosexual couple can't get married in a venue for hire, no one should be allowed to! That has been dictated by the state.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Saturday, 18 February 2012 8:11:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mishka Gora,

What's this?...."...a compromise that will allow religious organisations to opt out of providing coverage that would include birth control for women..."
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19834

It's nothing that a universal health care system wouldn't address. Tethering health care to employment is at odds with the tenets of modern social democracy - and the religious right in the U.S. are amongst the most vocal in opposing any move toward universality in this area.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 18 February 2012 9:22:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mishka Gora

UMC

Did you read the article I linked?

A further quote:

>>Neptune Township had actually opposed the application, arguing that Ocean Grove was governed by religious restrictions that made it doubtful that it could meet the requirement under the Green Acres tax program that required that property under the program be open to public use on an equal basis without discrimination. But Ocean Grove countered that they would make the Pavilion available for public use "WITHOUT RESERVATION." Judge Metzger pointed out that the website on which they advertised the Pavilion's availability MADE NO REFERENCE TO ANY RELIGIOUS DOCTRINAL REQUIREMENTS. Indeed, the Pavilion was rented for a wide variety of wedding ceremonies, MANY OF WHICH WOULD NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH METHODIST DOCTRINE.>>

(Capitalisations added)

--So Neptune Township pointed out to UMC that there could be no religious restrictions placed on the use of the Pavilion and UMC had accepted this proviso.

--UMC had already allowed the pavilion to be used for wedding ceremonies that did not comply with UMC doctrine.

I'm afraid I do not have much sympathy for UMC in this case. Their problems are of their own making. I cannot see how this can reasonably be considered the beginning of the end for freedom of conscience in the USA.

Nor BTW do I have much sympathy for the plaintiffs, Berstein and Paster. Sometimes a little give and take is the wisest course. If UMC had told me that they could not accept a Jewish wedding ceremony I would have sought another venue. Google maps and the Yellow Pages show there are many alternatives.

Clearly Bernstein & Paster wanted a fight.

CATHOLIC CHURCH

So long as the silly practice of linking health cover to employment continues some give and take is required. The employees must also be allowed their freedom of conscience.

Note that the Catholic Church campaigned against a "public option" in the "Obamacare" legislation. Had the public option been in effect the Catholic Church could presumably have gone out of the business of providing employee-linked healthcare and these problems would not have arisen.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 18 February 2012 9:51:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talking of America's dysfunctional health care system:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 18 February 2012 10:09:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*American women, including the 98 percent of Catholic women who have used birth control, have every right to be outraged by the disproportionate political influence of the handful of men who run the Catholic Church and the Religious Right." *

A great point, in the article which you quoted, Poirot. The compromise
means that women will receive family planning as part of their
healthcare and the stingy Vatican can save a few pennies.

Mishka, you seem to think that its fine for the church to only
employ people who accept the Catholic dogma, yet if I posted an
advert looking for employees who were specifically non Catholics,
you people would no doubt be jumping up and down about religious discrimination.

Freedom of religion is all very well, but so should be freedom from
religion.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 18 February 2012 12:09:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, the 'HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.”' http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/six-more-things-everyone-should-know.html

stevenlmeyer, yes i did. Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. No one's disputing that the Pavilion was open to the public without reservation. B&P weren't turned away because they were homosexual. I said: "I very much doubt they would have accommodated a wedding between two Satanists, whether they were heterosexual or homosexual, ... Had the couple in question merely wanted to rent the venue for a party and been refused, then it would certainly appear to be a case of discrimination, but the issue was not who was renting the facility, it was what they wanted to do in it." It's not that the UMC had a policy of not hiring the venue to homosexuals - that would be wrong - they merely had a policy of not allowing incompatible activities. If a public gymnasium doesn't allow fencing it doesn't mean they're discriminating against fencers as long as they admit fencers to do other activities. Disallowing an activity is not discrimination. The judge also said there was no "malice" on the part of Ocean Grove. The other weddings you refer to weren't Methodist, but they would have been recognised as marriages and are therefore compatible with the Methodist creed. Methodists don't go around saying Catholics aren't really married, or vice versa, but both do not recognise SSM. Whether you agree or not, however silly you may think it is, they see SSM as no more valid than a marriage of a man and a sheep.

Yabby, for argument's sake let's say you're a humanist. If you run a humanist organisation and advertise for employees who only support your humanist doctrine, no one will accuse you of discrimination. That's all the Catholic Church is doing. It's not advertising specifically for Catholics, just for those who can work within its ethos. And if American Catholic women have a problem with the Church's dogma on birth control, they can leave. It's a free world.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Saturday, 18 February 2012 2:04:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*If you run a humanist organisation and advertise for employees who only support your humanist doctrine, no one will accuse you of discrimination*

Last time I checked Mishka,it was illegal to discriminate on the
basis of religion.

*And if American Catholic women have a problem with the Church's dogma on birth control, they can leave.*

Lol, if they did that, then there would be no Catholic Church,
because as the stats show, nearly all of them ignore church teachings
on this one. They correctly point out that its none of the church's
business as to what goes on in their bedroom.

Fact is that Rome has painted itself into a corner on this one and
they can't really get out of it without admitting that the pope
is not infallible. So they plod on regardless.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 18 February 2012 3:37:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin ibq Warriq, your response to my simple question (note, it was only a question, not an assertion), was, "Credulous GlenC. People like you vote in tyrants." I've now read the strange post you provided a link to and assume you think that what it said justified your intemperate categorisation of me. It didn't. If you found credible its attempt to invalidate the research finding that 98% of Catholic women have used contraception at least once then it's your incredulity on display here. Of course the survey results do not mean that almost every Catholic woman is using contraceptives as we speak. That would be incredible. It means that every American Catholic woman, whether 15 or 95, married or single, heterosexual or homosexual, nun or lay, admits to having used some form of contraception at some stage during her life. And that means that almost every American Catholic woman has, at least once, shown that she does not take the Vatican's ban on contraception too seriously. So who does? Presumably, it's mainly the priests and bishops. And their seeming penchant for getting about in long robes does not, I suggest, make them more entitled to decide what women should do with their bodies than the women themselves. So why don't the be-frocked religious and the (mainly) be-suited company bosses step aside and let women lead this argument?
Posted by GlenC, Sunday, 19 February 2012 1:12:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mishka,

The cases you brought are very disturbing.

Now there are two lessons to learn:

1. Leave the U.S.A - it's a bad place!
(though I don't recommend moving to Saudi Arabia instead...)

2. You cannot make it alone!

We cannot demand that only religious people and organizations get special exemptions from the law. It doesn't work to hope for special dispensations for religion while allowing the state to prosecute others whose reasons for breaking the law are un-religious.

In order to succeed, stop totalitarianism and allow freedom of conscience, we MUST stand together in coalition to protect our inherent freedoms, religious (of all orders and denominations) and non-religious alike. While we may personally feel disgusted at what some of our coalition-friends may do with their freedom, we must nevertheless respect their choices and keep their judgment to God alone (remember that some of them are just as well disgusted with what WE do with our freedom!). It is not for us to try taking their free choice away.

When applied to the cases you brought,

A. Any property owner should have complete sovereignty over their land, including the ability to choose AT THEIR PLEASURE whom to invite and whom not to invite, which functions to allow and which functions to forbid, etc.

B. The word "employment" should not even be mentioned in legislation. There are only deals entered freely between two individuals (which the current law stamps as "employer" and "employee"), and whatever they agree between them should be legal. Specifically, there should be no requirement that one of them should provide the other with a medical insurance.

Together we can win, apart we will be broken.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 February 2012 2:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, what you and I have described is not discrimination. As long Catholics are prepared to hire non-Catholics who support their ethos and you are prepared to hire non-humanists who support your ethos, there is no discrimination. I don’t need to be Jewish to be willing to forego eating bacon at the staff caf, and if a Jewish organization hires me on the basis that I support their ethos, that’s fine; but if they say they won’t hire me because I’m Catholic even though I’ve said I’m willing to work within a Jewish ethos, then that is discrimination.

I find you incoherent on the matter on contraception. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with the matter, and church teaching is not dependent on the number of people who obey or disobey it. The Church is composed of sinners; nothing new there.

GlenC, you may find the perspective of this Catholic woman blogger interesting: http://awomansplaceis.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/but-everybodys-doing-it.html. I would add that there are plenty of women who haven’t always been Catholic or who were never really taught properly about contraception – I can assure you that I’ve never heard a priest mention it! This is a problem that the Church must address, but it doesn’t mean men in robes have been deciding what laywomen should do. Quite the opposite, the problem is that they haven’t been telling them what to do. And the priests you mention cannot step aside and let the women decide. This is a matter of church teaching, set in stone. Nothing they say or do can change that. Not even the Pope has the power to change that. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. My personal observations are that most practicing Catholic women of childbearing age do not use artificial contraception, proven by the fact that they tend to have a baby every two years or so in their most fertile years.

Yuyutsu, thank-you for your sensible observations.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Sunday, 19 February 2012 2:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I find you incoherent on the matter on contraception. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with the matter*

Mishka, lets get real here. If I'm roughly correct, less then 3%
of the Australian population even bother to attend a Catholic church
each week. Going by the stats, most of those largely ignore Catholic
teachings on family planning. So what the church preaches on the
matter is largely irrelevant. Sadly the church still has quite some
political influence and as we saw with Harradine, one Catholic
managed to force his viewpoint on a Govt via bargaining over Telstra.

Things were not at all clear, before Paul 6 issued the Humanea Vitae.
Many in Rome were pushing for the pill to be accepted. The church
has paid a heavy price ever since, with Catholics in most parts of
the world, leaving in droves and others simply ignoring church dogma
on family planning. But alas they are locked in a corner, for no
pope can now go against the dogma with any credibility. Take a look
at the growth churches in places like South America. Its Pentacotals
and similar, whilst Catholic bums on seats continue to decline.
People will clearly get to heaven, even if they use contraception!

Meantime in places like the Phillipines, the poorest of the poor pay
a heavy price. Women who have popped out 7 and 8 kids, plead to
have a tubal litigation, but of course the Catholics control the
hospitals, so there is not much chance of that. Sadly that
Vatican dogma is responsible for an awful lot of suffering on our
planet. Shame on them, that is hardly compassion.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 February 2012 5:22:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>This is a matter of church teaching, set in stone. Nothing they say or do can change that. Not even the Pope has the power to change that. <<

Fail. The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on doctrine concerning faith or morals. He most definitely has the power to change the Church's teaching on contraception: he just chooses not to exercise it. I'll leave the wisdom of that decision for others to debate.

>>The Catholic Church is not a democracy.<<

You're right that the Church is not a democracy: it is, essentially, a benevolent dictatorship run by the Pope. The only man in the Church who is elected is the Pope himself: all the Bishops are there by his predecessor's appointment.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 19 February 2012 6:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony, you clearly do not understand infallibility. You are correct that the Pope's teaching is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. That does not, however, enable him to teach heresy. Contraception is contrary to the Magisterium, and this article (which has a Nihil Obstat) explains the situation. I quote: "The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly." http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
Posted by Mishka Gora, Sunday, 19 February 2012 7:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, this is old ground. We've had these discussions before. I'm not going to repeat myself. Low church numbers, while unfortunate, have no bearing on this issue. I refer you to the link I just gave Tony. Things were VERY CLEAR prior to HV. Contraception has always been against church teaching, and you will see evidence of this cited from as early as 195AD. You might also note that Protestant churches also condemned contraception up until the Lambeth Conference. You also are very out of touch with the Church. The younger generation don't have a problem with the Church's teaching on birth control, and I think WYD attendances in the millions suggest you are wrong, including 4 million attending in the Philippines. There are dying parishes but there are also thriving ones, and now that the USA suddenly has a full complement of bishops united as one we're finally seeing some leadership. You seem to think you know so much about the Church, but my guess is you don't go to Mass and haven't done so in a long time.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Sunday, 19 February 2012 8:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*but my guess is you don't go to Mass and haven't done so in a long time.*

Lol Mishka, I saw through the attempts at brainwashing when I was
about 8! If it were up to me, the pope would be charged with
environmental degradation and taken before the courts for denial
of peoples human rights.

Fact is that the whole Catholic contraception thinggy is built
upon the old testament story of Onan and the wasted sperms.
Now either the old testament is true or its not true. If its true,
then I should kill my neighbour for working on the Sabbath. I refuse
to do that, I like my neighbour.

Now if wasting sperms is a mortal sin, then I don't think too many
male catholics are ever going to make it to heaven.

How people believe this stuff just blows me away. But fair enough,
they have a right to believe whatever they want. My problem is
when they try to enforce their dogma on the rest of us, by use
of the political system. Keep Catholic dogma for complying catholics
and leave the rest of us out of it.

As to the history of the Catholic Church, read "The Sex lives of the
Popes." It makes for entertaining reading.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 February 2012 8:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Fact is that the whole Catholic contraception thinggy is built
upon the old testament story of Onan and the wasted sperms."

Sorry to interrupt, but Onan was not killed for wasting sperms - he was killed for contempt and betrayal of his brother Er.

Unlike the Sabbath for example, no commandment was attached to the event. This is because the commandment to redeam one's brother's widow is already mentioned elsewhere.

According to the bible, wasting sperms, while less than perfect is not a serious offense: one who touches sperm must wait until the next evening, then wash before they can go into the temple again.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 February 2012 9:16:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Yuyutsu, you clearly haven't read the "infallible truth" from
Mishka's catholic website!

But the quote below is what I loved best, which is from the
Apostolic tradition it seems:

*Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).*

In other words, if our dollar a day Manilla couple, living
in a humpy on the rubbish tip, want a bit of comfort from
each other, well thats just too bad, they can't afford the risk.
Meantime wealthier Catholics can shag away with relative impunity
it seems.

This from an organisation which claims to be compassionate!
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 February 2012 11:15:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby,

I already apologized for jumping in - I can read my bible, but I am not a Christian, how much less so a Catholic and how much less so an expert on Catholicism.

In my humble opinion, I believe that what the church-founders meant by "it is better to abstain" is that a superior man would abstain from sex. A superior man would only want God rather than sensual gratification, which is very true. But is the opposite also true? Can a person become superior by willfully (but resentfully) avoiding sensual gratification? I don't think so. It is best to acknowledge that you are not the best.

A small willful step, inspired by the love of God, can eventually make you superior by His grace, but if resentment creeps in, then you should know that you have gone too far too fast, that you tried to run a marathon before learning to walk.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 20 February 2012 4:37:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, perhaps if you hadn't given up on the Church when you were 8 you'd know that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The Church doesn't even enforce its dogma about contraception on Catholics, let alone non-Catholics. It's not like the Church has set up contraception cameras at chemists to see who's breaking the rules. Speaking of which, even if the 98% stat were true (and I don't think it is), so what?! I'm sure 98% of drivers have broken the speed limit at some point and most probably still do regularly - should we abolish speed limits? Anyway, why don't you just let Catholics decide for themselves (as you have done). If they think they've done something wrong, then they can go to Confession. (That's something I think you may have forgotten - while the Church is very clear on matters of dogma, it leaves it up to each person to examine to examine their conscience and decide what to confess. How many male Catholics make it to Heaven isn't for you or me or even the Pope to know....) And if they don't subscribe to the Catholic creed even in principle then they can leave as you have done... and change their mind at any time should they wish. As for your hypothetical Filipino couple, is it really so dreadful to expect them to abstain for two or three days a month? Not nearly so bad a deal as for those who aren't married and who are expected to abstain all the time, methinks. There are much worse things than going without sex for 3 days, and (as Yuyutsu has so thoughtfully observed) a person may derive benefit from such a practice. Furthermore, the Church and Catholics has as much right as non-Catholics to participate in the democratic process. I agree there are problems with democracy, but don't project them onto Catholicism which, as I've happily admitted, is not a democracy. Let's not go over old ground. You can reread the 180 comments on my previous article if you want to do that: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12960&page=0
Posted by Mishka Gora, Monday, 20 February 2012 7:11:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re the so called infallibility of the pope, you know that chap who wears clown costumes, why not check out The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby.

Remember too that both the previous and current popes deliberately engineeered the takeover of the church by opus dei and similar right-wing reactionary "traditionalist" groups.

Re the systematic horribleness of opus dei check out

http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm

Would and sane person let their children be "educated" by these people.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 20 February 2012 8:07:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mishka Gora,

Two of my very good friends are church attending Catholics - an older couple with eleven grown-up children with families of their own. All these "children" were educated in the Catholic system and attended church during their youth. None of them regularly attend mass these days. They are a close family and it would seem from my regular observation that they would still consider themselves Catholic as part of their identity, yet none of them usually enters a church except to baptise their children or in connection with a Catholic school activity (the church usually fills up periodically when Catholic schools require attendance at church - it then drops off to only the regulars until the next school-induced attendance) - and the baptism is more to ensure that their offspring have an easy slide into a Catholic school. I would say, judging by the size of their respective families, that they all practice contraception. I don't think any of them consider that they have formally "left" the church even though they appear to reject its dogma.
I once asked my church-attending friend about confession. He gave me a wry smile and muttered something to the effect that it was something that you could request, but most of his fellow church-attendees didn't bother with it anymore.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 20 February 2012 9:58:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The Church doesn't even enforce its dogma about contraception on Catholics, let alone non-Catholics*

It sure does, where it can get away with it politically. Smuggling
the pill into Ireland used to be a great busines. In Africa we have
Catholic bishops claiming that a virus can penetrate through
condoms. In the Phillipines, the poor are denied access to contraception
due to Vatican political influence. In Australia they
would not dare try, they would become a laughing stock.

As your so called infallible URL points out, this is not about
Catholics exercising their conscience, but about "individual
disobedience" and is mortaly sinful! Off to hell they go lol.

Clearly the Catholic method of birth control is a dismal failure,
or all those Phillipinos would not be having children that they
do not want nor can afford.

Whilst the Catholic Church operates as a political lobby group
to try and enforce its dogma on the rest of us, it is open to
criticism and should be held to account for its actions, like anyone
who is part of the political process. The more that this is
discussed in places like OLO, so that the truth is revealed, so
much the better
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 20 February 2012 2:23:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I my response is rather general. What you describe is fairly typical in the English-speaking (non-Catholic) world, but not at all typical in other countries. For example, in Nigeria, Sunday Mass is attended by thousands, Catholics are devout and steadfast, and children remain observant even when going through their rebellious phase. The Catholic Church is inclusive, not exclusive, especially compared to Protestant churches. Any baptised Catholic can legitimately claim to be Catholic, and the Church accepts that we're all sinners, whether we follow Church teaching or not. What differentiates Catholics more is probably whether or not they're in communion with the Church, what people often refer to as 'practicing'. Catholics are required to receive Communion at least once each year between Ash Wednesday and Trinity Sunday, and that in turn means going to Confession beforehand. They should also attend Mass every Sunday. Of course, anyone who "leaves" or stops practicing by not fulfilling such requirements (or by excommunicating themselves by their actions) can come back at any time simply by going to Confession (which is a friendly pleasant experience nothing like on TV). Confession is something you can request at any time, but it’s on offer in all parishes at least weekly, daily in some (especially city ones where workers on lunchbreak and non-Catholics predominate), and more often during Lent. Many Catholics, a majority in Australia (and the USA/UK), have not been taught anything but the most rudimentary aspects of Catholicism, mostly due to the misplaced good intentions of a generation of priests whose focus on God's loving forgiveness translated into a failure to communicate the sins requiring forgiveness. This is starting to change, and we’re seeing a new batch of vibrant young priests coming through who are more balanced and intellectually rigorous. As a contrast, I can honestly say that in my parish the children outnumber the adults, and family size ranges from 3 to 13 children, the smaller numbers because of the modern tendency of marrying late (in one's 30s).
Posted by Mishka Gora, Monday, 20 February 2012 3:40:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that, Mishka.

I don't really know that my point was much more than an observation of a "Catholic family" and how after a certain generation, and immersion in secular Australia, that things seem to have altered considerably. I'm always interested in how different faiths find their paths in the modern West.

The local parish does have some vibrant young priests. Mostly they come from the Philippines, although there is also one from Italy at moment. Our town (small city) recently became the recipient of a brand new provincial Catholic cathedral (unusual in these times). I think I was one of the most exited because I love cathedral architecture and enjoyed watching the building rise up on top of the hill. I've often thought it would be nice if I could "believe" (no luck thus far) because I feel fully at home in the sacred space encompassed in these places.

Cheers
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 20 February 2012 4:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

"I've often thought it would be nice if I could "believe" (no luck thus far) because I feel fully at home in the sacred space encompassed in these places."

Belief may lead some to feel fully at home,
but as you already feel fully at home, belief is not necessary.

It seems that God loves you anyway!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 20 February 2012 5:28:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Catholics are required to receive Communion at least once each year between Ash Wednesday and Trinity Sunday, and that in turn means going to Confession beforehand.<<

Fail. A Catholic may not receive Communion if they are conscious of being in a state of mortal sin without first Confessing to that sin. But otherwise, receiving the Eucharist is not contingent upon the Sacrament of Reconciliation. My parents are practicing (I am not) and attend Mass every Sunday and every Holy Day of Obligation - it is not my business how often they receive Reconciliation, but I suspect it is a good deal less often.
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 20 February 2012 6:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a wider perspective on this issue and the fascist nature of opus dei why not Google the essay titled Opus Dei and the War on Birth Control: Neofascism Within the Catholic Church - available via Alternet.

Referring back to my previous post on the Criminal History of the Papacy, what is remarkable in the face of this documented systematic VENALITY is that catholics still pretend that popes are created or chosen via a process of "holy" apostolic succession, and that the pope is the vicar-of-christ, whatever that could possibly be.

Whereas in reality many of the popes were basically insane, even psychotic, and not in any sense fit for human company.

They were always chosen via a process of power politics between the various factions in their time and place. The faction that had the most political power within the church had their ghoul elected.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 10:07:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony, are you deliberately trying to misinterpret me or just naturally pugnacious? What I said is quite correct. I did not say "immediately beforehand", though it is ideal.

Catholics are required to receive Communion at least once each year between Ash Wednesday and Trinity Sunday, and while reception of the Eucharist is not contingent on going to Confession (but on other factors including whether one is in a state of grace but which may nevertheless require Confession) one is also required to receive the Sacrament of Penance(Confession) once a year. Obviously, the natural order of this is Penance, then Communion, and even if one hasn't committed a mortal sin the Church encourages its flock to confess venial ones. Lent, starting tomorrow, is a penitential period, followed by Easter, which gives its name to our Easter Duty of taking communion once a year. Regardless, one must go to Confession once during the year prior to taking Communion.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Why_Confession.htm
Posted by Mishka Gora, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 11:04:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many exemptions already exist in the interests of protecting religious freedom. To what extent should governments turn a blind 'legal' eye. No Western government has yet to condone honour killings, FGM, child sexual abuse or stoning unfaithful women in a drive for religious freedom. Polygamy is overlooked in the US and even in Australia in the context of cultural or religious differences. The US has had to deal with problems in relation to very young girls being married off to sleazy old men. Where to draw the line when a religious practice is so morally wrong as to inflict pain or suffering.

I haven't yet met a Catholic woman who is not using contraception. Even the Billings Method is contraceptive method. Nothing 'godly' about mainly male Catholic leaders forcing women to have numerous babies they can ill afford. Not to mention the long term effects and risks for the mother of numerous pregnancies; often in conflict with doctors who advise 'no more babies'. A woman could abstain, but not with a priest demanding she obey her husband.

However, what about individual choice. One always has the option to leave a Church if one ignores for a moment some of the difficulties eg. the brainwashing effect and the risk of being separated from loved ones in sects who ban contact with 'outsiders'.

In relation to same sex marriage, the Australian Government is currently suggesting Churches won't have to perform SSM - it will be a matter of conscience. While I shudder sometimes at the absurdities of some religions it is not a huge problem accepting that marriage is ostensibly a legal contract or civil event.

The problem will arise when a homosexual Catholic or Muslim may seek a blessing in the eyes of God, however this is a time for individuals to reflect if their Church meets their own standards, values and moral code.

There is room for optimism, religion is evolving, many already re-examining their own prejudices, power structures and understanding of historical contexts.

The issues the author raises would be better approached from employer obligations vs government obligations.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 11:45:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, almost everyone has reacted as if Catholics are the ones trying to impose their beliefs on others. This is quite the opposite. This isn't about whether women have access to birth control - they already have it! - and this isn't about Catholics trying to restrict that access - they're not! All the US bishops are insisting upon is that employers don't have to pay for it. I do not consider birth control a government or an employer obligation, which is why I didn't take your suggested approach. The user should pay for it. Men have to pay for condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for the Pill?! And don't tell me it's a part of basic health care. Basic health care doesn't even pay for prescriptions that people need to stay alive. There are far more important 'health' matters than birth control.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 12:26:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelican,

"Where to draw the line when a religious practice is so morally wrong as to inflict pain or suffering."

Government has no mandate to enforce morals, nor to determine which practices are religious and which are not.

The only way to ensure religious freedom is to abstain from stealing anyone's freedom, be they religious or otherwise.

The only morally-acceptable mandate of government, is to protect its citizens (eg. those who agreed to come under its protection) against violence and fraud. For that end, government has the right to restrain even those who haven't sought its protection from harming those who are under its protection, but it has for example no mandate to "protect" those who have not sought its protection.

Therefore, where people freely agree to inflict pain and suffering on each other, for whatever reason, or even to sacrifice each other, government must not interfere.

There is this grey area where it is not clear whether or not a person would have wished to obtain the state's protection, but in general governments tend to assume beyond reason that people want its protection, even when the balance of probabilities is otherwise.

A possible solution is to have citizens inform the government in advance, preferably in writing and long before a crisis occurs, whether (and if so in what circumstances) they want its protection. Like any deal freely entered, the government may in turn set its conditions for those who want to be protected by it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 1:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mishka
I do agree with your argument that governments, not employers should be providing universal health care. Apologies if that did not come across - the dangers of editing.

The Catholic Church does attempt to influence government policy on many issues and in that way they are dictating their views (as any other lobbyist including atheists).

Yuyutsu

'Government has no mandate to enforce morals, nor to determine which practices are religious...'

Do you apply that rule to Churches in attempting to influence governments on issues like legalising same sex marriage?

Governments have to make distinctions in some circumstances should religious organisations seek tax exemptions or funding ie. what constitutes a religion or religious practice. IMO governments should not be funding religious activities or atheist conventions. These are personal activities.

I agree, governments should not get too involved in morality issues unless there is harm to others. There is sometimes a thin boundary on that last point, what one group of people see as 'harm' others as acts of honour or obedience to (generally) a patriarchial body.

'Therefore, where people freely agree to inflict pain and suffering on each other, for whatever reason, or even to sacrifice each other, government must not interfere.'

I disagree on those sorts of extreme acts. They are illegal for a reason and have long term and far reaching effects on the rest of society. What constitutes agreement? There are many types of force - membership of a particular religous sect does not automatically imply agreement to some of the acts but it may be interpreted so.

It comes down to obeying Common Laws which serve to protect all people equally. On that basis sometimes discussions have to be had on religious and other practices.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 5:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelican,

"Do you apply that rule to Churches in attempting to influence governments on issues like legalising same sex marriage?"

Yes, except I do not believe that governments should be involved with marrying people in the first place.

"IMO governments should not be funding religious activities or atheist conventions. These are personal activities."

I absolutely agree.

"what one group of people see as 'harm' others as acts of honour or obedience to (generally) a patriarchial body."

Therefore people who seek the state's protection must first declare exactly what they want to be protected from. Once protection by the state is no longer compulsory, this is a free and open deal and the state is also allowed to accept or decline its offer for protection.

"membership of a particular religous sect does not automatically imply agreement to some of the acts but it may be interpreted so."

I'm not proposing that the government asks "Excuse me Sir/Madam, are you a member of this or that group?". The only question is "Would you like the state to protect you?" and if the answer is 'Yes', then the terms of the protection-agreement must be open and agreed to by both sides.

"It comes down to obeying Common Laws which serve to protect all people equally."

This sounds almost demonic: not all people necessarily wish to be protected and/or protected by the same institution(s) and/or protected in the same way(s). The state may apply Common Laws in order to protect those who seek its protection, even against strangers who do not wish the same, but not in order to protect those who want nothing to do with the state.

"On that basis sometimes discussions have to be had on religious and other practices."

The state is a secular institution and as such it has no idea about religion and no skills to discuss religious issues. It should instead concentrate on its sole duty -to protect those of its citizens who seek its protection. Religion should not come into it at all. It's up to religious people to decide whether to seek the state's-protection.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 5:46:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mishka,

You said in an earlier exchange that;

“As a writer, I am trying to convey an opinion, not to present an entire case, and certainly not to present both sides of a case.”

May I say you have been true to that mantra with this piece.

You wrote; “President Obama has issued a dictatorial mandate that forces the free provision of birth control and sterilisation procedures to all American women "no matter where they work".”

Yet to the outsider only by the most blinkered thinking could one feel that was a reasonable interpretation of what occurred.

President Obama bent over backwards to accommodate the Catholic churches. He had originally exempted them from having to provide coverage for birth control but that wasn't good enough for the Bishops. They demanded Catholic universities and hospitals now be also exempt, something Obama compromised on by saying that those Catholic institutions which serve people of different or no faith would not have to pay for the birth control, instead it was to be covered, at no extra cost to the institutions, by the insurance companies.

Some of the heads of these institutions initially thanked Obama for the concession but then the Bishops and the Republicans have wound the issue up.

So what was the problem Obama trying to address?

Contraceptive measures are many times more expensive in the US compared to Australia. Even the humble Pill is at least 5 times the cost of what it would be to the average Australian and nearly 100 times the cost paid by a Health Care Card holder.

The amount of coverage available in the US varies but of the traditional indemnity plans about half did not cover any reversible contraception at all. Only 33% covered the pill and less than 15% covered the five major methods. Traditional HMO's are a little better but not much, yet 2/3s of American women of child bearing age relied on their health insurance to cover their medical expenses.

Interestingly sterilization is covered in almost nine in 10 plans of all types, and abortion in two-thirds.

Cont...
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 5:54:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont...

The solution was easy. The average cost to provide full contraceptive coverage was less than $20 per employee per year. 80% was to come from the employer and 20% from the employee. Mandating it was certainly a socially progressive thing to do and something the large majority of Americans supported. Remember 98% of Catholic women will avail themselves of some form of contraception during their reproductive life. The Churches and affiliate organisations were exempt and the insurers were happy because every dollar spent on preventative measures saves them three in pregnacy related expenses.

It has been estimated that without publicly funded contraceptive services there would a 40% increase in abortions each year in the US.

Most people would sit back and say this was a good thing.

You do not.

I get that as a Catholic you have a position dictated to you that you feel is part of the package you have adopted and I certainly don't condemn you for it. You have taken it further by standing as a candidate in a Federal election for the DLP, a party which includes in its set of principles “the sacredness of human life, from conception until natural death, as the fundamental basis for all human rights”. In any case anyone with a young family inevitably finds some shift or strengthening in their perception of abortion when viewing the blessings of family, mind certainly did.

You are welcome to hold your views that a couple of dozen cells sailing past an unreceptive uterine wall is an abortion but when you paint this as an issue of a 'dictator' overthrowing the religious freedoms of Americans, when it patently isn't, you should expect to be challenged.

The obvious question one could ask is have you ever used contraceptives yourself? Yet that would of course be intrusive, though far less so than your Bishops actions one would think.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 5:55:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear csteele, wrt my statement 'President Obama has issued a dictatorial mandate that forces the free provision of birth control and sterilisation procedures to all American women "no matter where they work"' you may not like the words I used, but everything except the word 'dictatorial' is beyond question. Even the New York Times reported that the "compromise" wasn't actually meant as a compromise, the mandate does force the FREE provision of these drugs and procedures, and the "no matter where they work" is a direct quote. The exemption you refer to was so narrow that few Catholic employers qualified; perhaps you should read what Archbishop Chaput said on the matter: http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-12/news/31052361_1_human-services-social-service-public-funding

You yourself admit that contraception is expensive, giving the lie to your claim that insurance companies will cover the cost. Before the compromise: employers pay insurers who provide contraceptives. After the compromise: employers pay insurers who provide contraceptives. No change. Contraceptives are already publicly funded, and I have heard no indication either way, but if this mandate of employer-funded contraception is supposed to reduce public funding then it would suggest to me that it is funding women who can afford contraception to the detriment of those who cannot and could actually push up the abortion rate.

The bottom line is that I do not think the employer should pay for contraception. Sexual irresponsibility is bad enough as it is, we shouldn't force employers to subsidise it. (I don't think employers should be the providers of health care, full stop, I should add.)

(cont...)
Posted by Mishka Gora, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 8:34:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont...)

Your 98% statistic is absurd and misleading - see my previous comments. And my views as to the value of nascent human life are largely irrelevant to the issue of conscience. Catholics are not trying to impose any restrictions on the availability of contraception; they are merely opposing a government order that Catholic employers pay for employees' contraception. Contraception is a product, not a right, and I don't think the government should have the ability to force anyone to buy a product they don't want. That is dictatorial.

As for your final question, it is a very personal one, but I'm happy to answer you. Firstly, I would note that Catholic women can legitimately use contraceptives for medical reasons (as long as they abstain at the time). I certainly have used them for that purpose (prior to marriage), and I would note that insurance plans would cover this as it wouldn't fall under preventative health care but under treatment. However, as a married woman, I don't even use NFP (though it seems to be just as effective as artificial contraception going by the number of people I've known who have fallen pregnant despite using the Pill and/or condoms) as I don't believe in "planning" children except in grave circumstances. I'm not one of those women for whom breastfeeding is a natural contraceptive, and I have had four complicated and difficult pregnancies in the space of five years. I understand where non-Catholics are coming from on this issue (as I haven't always been a Catholic), but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for Catholics to refuse to be involved in the purchase of something that violates their conscience.

I think it would be far less intrusive if people were simply allowed to buy what they want when they want instead of having contraceptives mandated by the government. What business is it of the government to decree free contraception for women?!
Posted by Mishka Gora, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 8:44:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on Mishka, lets face reality. If they think that they have
any chance, the Catholic Church will use any means possible to enforce
its dogma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

It took decades for the people of Ireland, just to be allowed to
buy condoms, the pill and other means of contraception. The church
fought it all the way.

It took decades for people in Chile to be able to obtain a divorce,
again the church fought it all the way.

In Australia people would laugh at them if they tried to ban condoms,
so they are realists enough to not even try. So they are fighting
voluntary euthanasia and the members were still singing their Hail
Mary's when WA updated its abortion laws.

Fact it that the Catholic Church has no scruples, if it can get
away with enforcing its dogma on the rest of us, if it can achieve
it politically.

They have no respect for my right to freedom from religion, as they
demand their freedom of religion. That is a double standard, sorry.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 9:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mishka Gora,

Perhaps instead of a gnashing of teeth and a wringing of hands, Catholics in the U.S. should put their energies into lobbying both parties for a universal health system. After all, (as someone commented on one of your links) it doesn't appear that too many Catholics feel it's an appropriate act of conscience to withhold their paying of taxes because some of it might be funnelled into government funding for Planned Parenthood.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 9:34:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The religious fundamentalist have got it pretty bad. They should read a Sam Harris book and get checked out with a brain scan immediately. It is a fact that many religious fundamentalists have these similar delusions and may well have a serious mental health problem.
They seem to think these religious delusions and superstitions they suffer from, all invented and contrived by people that the rest of us consider no more than manipulative charlatans are real, none of these totalitarian dictates were composed by the supernatural entity Yahweh their numerous competing cults worships as if it were actually real, they are all man made derived from sun worship.
Try this exercise to try to stop supernatural religious delusions, it is difficult though, just think, which Pope or clergy do you consider is responsible for the most crimes against humanity, some are arguably the most horrific people in history, there are so many, even the pedophile child rapist being protected by your church from prosecution today. Put down your totalitarian dogma and get yourself a history book.
As for totalitarianism, look up "fascist Catholics" at google, one of the worst, Mussolini created the Vatican State in 1929, hows that for a pedigree. Look up "Gott Mitt Uns" at google.
Here's a quote for you to memorize, by someone that knows about Fascist Catholics and totalitarians.
When fascism comes to your country it will have a flag in one hand and a bible in the other. Sinclair Lewis 1935.
Now take a good look at the new age totalitarian religious right we see daily, the ones with the bible in one hand and a flag pinned on their lapel, right where the Nazis had their swastika pinned?
Posted by HFR, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 7:12:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mishka,

Thank you for your considered response and thank you as well for being prepared to continue the discussion on your article via this forum. There are not a lot of authors who avail themselves of the opportunity so kudos to you for doing so.

First to your defense of your statement. 

You claimed "everything except the word 'dictatorial' is beyond question.". Well here is my question, are the women who work in the Catholic Churches denied access to coverage of their contraception costs or not?

Of course they are, so you can hardly claim this benefit is available "to all American women "no matter where they work"" never mind how narrow you believe the exemption to be.

Nor can you claim it is free. That it is of such a minor cost to make it universal that the insurers were able to absorb it in their packages doesn't change that fact.

Further you will be aware that there are very few wholly employer funded insurance schemes in America. Nearly all involve co-contributions from the employees. 

"Typically, employers pay about 85% of the insurance premium for their employees, and about 75% of the premium for their employees' dependents. The employee pays the remaining fraction of the premium, usually with pre-tax/tax-exempt earnings." wikipedia

Therefore a possible solution for those frocked folk is to consider that the small cost comes from the employee's share. Ultimately it is the employee's benefit, part of their renumeration and just as a Catholic employer shouldn't be able to dictate how that wage is spent nor should they have control over over the health insurance component.

Cont..
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 9:27:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

When the compromise was reached the Catholic Health Association, representing over 600 Catholic medical facilities which opposed the original mandate, said the new one "protects religious liberty and the conscience rights of Catholic institutions."

Then a bunch of old men got involved. Not without precedence though. Around 28% of American women have had their tubes tied and Catholic women are indistinguishable in their rates from the rest of the population. But in 2001, the conference of bishops revised its Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, decided to put sterilization on a par with abortion as "intrinsically immoral."

You may see this as a divine dictum delivered in this century, but to the outsider it appears to be the whim of a group of old celibate men deciding to further rule over women's reproductive health.

As a Catholic you are welcome to it but the reality is that in most cases it is not Catholic funds that are paying for their employee health insurance but rather the tax payers of America. The Catholic organizations have been charged with distributing those funds to deliver services that assist the community. If I were one of those tax payers I certainly wouldn't want my contributions filtered through a religious sieve and not to go where my democratically elected President, with the support of a vast majority of citizens, has rightly mandated they go.

I'm afraid after that Mishka you talk yourself into a circle. I do it myself sometimes.

Be that as it may I did find you words "Sexual irresponsibility is bad enough as it is, we shouldn't force employers to subsidise it." depressingly Catholic and  Pauline take on this. I do find the Jewish attitude to the joyousness of sex far more refreshing. Something to be experienced in abundance just like life.

Permit me to be a little saddened when I observe what appears to be a dampening of that spirit. 
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 9:30:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Csteele,

As for "the Jewish attitude to the joyousness of sex", just as in Christianity, Judaism too has no uniform attitude to sex - each sect to their own, please read:
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/gur-hasidim-and-sexual-separation-1.410811
and
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/for-members-of-israel-s-ultra-orthodox-gur-sect-sex-is-a-sin-1.412153
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 10:45:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Written last night but post limit had been reached.)

I'm taking a break from OLO for Lent, so I'm afraid you'll have to redirect your rants if you want a reply.

I should note, however, that the way this thread has turned into a forum for anti-Catholic pillory, despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on the topic, demonstrates how difficult it is for Catholics to get a fair hearing. Instead of discussing whose role it is to pay for contraception, this thread has pretty much become a place to sound off against Catholicism. Yabby's most recent comment "Catholic Church has no scruples" is a case in point - is the Church so unscrupulous it's devoid of morality, or is there a conspiracy to impose its morality? You can't argue both ways... unless you're Yabby or another OLO troll!

(Poirot, wrt your point, PP claims to do more than provide contraception and abortion, so it would be rather difficult to withhold tax on conscience grounds. And I think you will find even the Pope agrees with you about universal health care: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm, as do I. Catholics tend to be very active in the areas of social justice, and many Catholics voted for Obama last election, though not expecting Obama to violate their freedom of conscience. More on this: http://catholicphilly.com/2012/02/news/nation-world/blaire-catholic-church-has-long-sought-decent-health-care-for-all/ Problem is that contraception and abortion are often called 'health care' when there's nothing intrinsically unhealthy about being pregnant and therefore no justification for its funding by Catholic employers.)

As a final comment, I think it's interesting that despite a great deal of attention being paid to Santorum's Catholic views on contraception, his popularity with women is increasing: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/women-prefer-santorum-romney-10-point-margin-says-gallup

P.S. csteele, I didn't realise that the joyousness of sex was dependent on being irresponsible or using contraception... or that a "Catholic" view of sex was intrinsically depressing! That suggests to me that you have a paltry understanding of Catholicism and are prejudiced, because I consider the Jewish attitude to sex as essentially the same. Indeed, Orthodox Jews are just as opposed to artificial contraception and abortion as orthodox Catholics.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 11:12:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mishka Gora,

If it's your expectation that everyone should agree with you, it would probably be more appropriate to restrict your articles to appearances on Catholic forums.

This subject rests intrinsically on Catholic precepts and how they are impacted by their seeming incompatibility with many facets of modern Western society. Any discussion on claims of "moral exemption" simultaneously invites critical appraisal of the system that promotes it.

It seems that you consider those opinions challenging your own to be "rants"...respect works both ways in debate.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 11:37:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair dinkum Poirot what tiresome pap, while you enjoy your self imposed exile from civil discourse under that screen name read:

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=37220

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/orthodox-bishops-join-opposition-unjust-hhs-contraception-mandate

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/02/10/statement-by-religious-scholars-on-contraceptive-coverage-policy-change/

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=37220&fb_source=message

and for everyone's sake get a clue
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 1:14:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

"This subject rests intrinsically on Catholic precepts and how they are impacted by their seeming incompatibility with many facets of modern Western society."

This should not be the issue because the state has no way to persecute Catholic precepts (which granted, are incompatible with many facets of modern Western society) - it can only persecute PEOPLE who wish to follow those.

Once no one is forced by the law to follow the ways of modern Westen society (or any other ways) against their will, Catholics will benefit as well and be free to practice their precepts.

The problem is that some want to have their freedoms just for themselves, ignoring the fact that they are not the only ones who are oppressed by the state. Catholics should work together with other oppressed people and groups, rather than try to make sole exceptions for their particular precepts.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 2:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy