Catholic Hospital says Fetus is not a person

[sd'sker]

The argument was that the church is "forcing it's beliefs on others" by speaking up against things like abortion and contraception...etc. and trying to run it's own organizations by it's own views on morality and that was viewed as a bad thing. So, my question was, should the church be forced go just go along with society even though they don't believe in the direction of the morals of that society?

it is not society. it is a law. let us forget about this notion of 'forcing its beliefs on others'. we seem to be caught up on that and just arguing semantics. the fact is, why should a church be above the law of the land? why should some members of this country be denied the benefits afforded to others just because their employer finds it disagreeable?

 

if mcdonalds found minimum wage morally reprehensible (which, i am sure they do), why should they not be allowed to pick and chose what laws to abide by?

[Junior]

So, a church should have absolutely no say in society and how it runs it's own organizations. They should just be forced to go along with society no matter where the morals of that society goes.

What?

 

The argument was that the church is "forcing it's beliefs on others" by speaking up against things like abortion and contraception...etc. and trying to run it's own organizations by it's own views on morality and that was viewed as a bad thing. So, my question was, should the church be forced go just go along with society even though they don't believe in the direction of the morals of that society?

 

I applaud you sir, I really do. You've done a masterful job of painting the church as the victim here, by muddying the waters with the irrelevant hand-waving about birth control. If the church is worried about the direction of morals in our society, they should probably get their own house in order. THAT is the point of the thread, lest we all forget.

[carlfense]

The argument was that the church is "forcing it's beliefs on others" by speaking up against things like abortion and contraception...etc.

Must have missed that specific argument.

[BigRedBuster]

The argument was that the church is "forcing it's beliefs on others" by speaking up against things like abortion and contraception...etc. and trying to run it's own organizations by it's own views on morality and that was viewed as a bad thing. So, my question was, should the church be forced go just go along with society even though they don't believe in the direction of the morals of that society?

it is not society. it is a law. let us forget about this notion of 'forcing its beliefs on others'. we seem to be caught up on that and just arguing semantics. the fact is, why should a church be above the law of the land? why should some members of this country be denied the benefits afforded to others just because their employer finds it disagreeable?

 

if mcdonalds found minimum wage morally reprehensible (which, i am sure they do), why should they not be allowed to pick and chose what laws to abide by?

 

 

Society made the law.

[sd'sker]

The argument was that the church is "forcing it's beliefs on others" by speaking up against things like abortion and contraception...etc. and trying to run it's own organizations by it's own views on morality and that was viewed as a bad thing. So, my question was, should the church be forced go just go along with society even though they don't believe in the direction of the morals of that society?

it is not society. it is a law. let us forget about this notion of 'forcing its beliefs on others'. we seem to be caught up on that and just arguing semantics. the fact is, why should a church be above the law of the land? why should some members of this country be denied the benefits afforded to others just because their employer finds it disagreeable?

 

if mcdonalds found minimum wage morally reprehensible (which, i am sure they do), why should they not be allowed to pick and chose what laws to abide by?

 

 

Society made the law.

seriously? that is what you respond to? the law is greater than society. the church is not just bending at the whim of society for society's sake, it is demanding to be above the law.

[BigRedBuster]

So, what you are saying is that it's OK for politicians and other groups to push for what they think is moral in society and get laws changed to fit those morals, BUT, if a church does it, they are forcing their views on others and they need to just fall in line with what society is doing at the time.

[BigRedBuster]

let us forget about this notion of 'forcing its beliefs on others'.

 

Hey...you were the first one to bring the argument into the thread.

 

both examples of criticism get attention because it is the church trying to force their beliefs upon others,

[sd'sker]

So, what you are saying is that it's OK for politicians and other groups to push for what they think is moral in society and get laws changed to fit those morals, BUT, if a church does it, they are forcing their views on others and they need to just fall in line with what society is doing at the time.

yes, but no. no one is forcing anyone to take birth control. the state is just forcing the church's insurance cos. to provide to those who so choose to do so.

 

again, why should churches get preferential treatment?

let us forget about this notion of 'forcing its beliefs on others'.

 

Hey...you were the first one to bring the argument into the thread.

 

both examples of criticism get attention because it is the church trying to force their beliefs upon others,

clearly, i regret that now.

[JJ Husker]

This is getting a little sidetracked but a question that hasn't been brought up is, who is forcing this person to take a job with a church organization that does not want to provide coverage for contraceptives? If you want to receive that as an employee benefit, then don't work for an organization that doesn't want to provide it. I believe church organizations should be treated outside societies laws to some extent. It is really the only refuge a persons belief structure has from being totally at the whim of society. The MacDonalds analogy doesn't cut it when trying to compare to a religious organization. Mickey D's can't choose to find the minimum wage morally unacceptable because they have no basis. A church can choose to not provide contraceptives because A) they are a religious organization and B) no one is forcing anyone to work for them. I understand the tendency of non-religious folk to not like special rules for religion but, if they are not treated differently than any other business, it would be impossible to guarantee religious freedom. You know that ole Bill of Rights thing that precludes the government from infringing on your personal religious freedom. I think you will find if you read and look into the background of those portions referred to as "separation of church and state" you will find that it was intended more to keep the government out of our lives than it was to keep religious views out of government. I know the secular crowd doesn't like to interpret it that way but it is what it is. Once you accept that it has to be this way, it becomes possible to understand the points BRB and CNRed have raised about the no win situations and damned if you do damned if you don't hypocritical ways churches and religion are treated. If you think of a church as being exactly like Mickey D's, then it is a whole lot harder, if not impossible, to understand.

[sd'sker]

i respectfully disagree. first, religious freedom is more a freedom from religion. once the gov't favors one religion then all other religions necessarily hold a secondary status. so where does you belief that "church organizations should be treated outside societies laws to some extent" end. should american indians be exempt from drug laws? should wiccans be allowed to sacrifice animals? there are a lot of religions and you are expecting one to receive greater benefits. that seems dangerous.

 

you ask me to see it from their point of view, which i do and all i see is them asking for preferential treatment.

 

finally, they are not forcing anyone to take birth control (which would infringe on religious freedoms), they are requiring they provide it to those who do wish to use it. the church is acting as an employer and educational institution and should be required to abide by the same laws as anyone else.

[JJ Husker]

i respectfully disagree. first, religious freedom is more a freedom from religion. once the gov't favors one religion then all other religions necessarily hold a secondary status. so where does you belief that "church organizations should be treated outside societies laws to some extent" end. should american indians be exempt from drug laws? should wiccans be allowed to sacrifice animals? there are a lot of religions and you are expecting one to receive greater benefits. that seems dangerous.

 

you ask me to see it from their point of view, which i do and all i see is them asking for preferential treatment.

 

finally, they are not forcing anyone to take birth control (which would infringe on religious freedoms), they are requiring they provide it to those who do wish to use it. the church is acting as an employer and educational institution and should be required to abide by the same laws as anyone else.

I don't think I am expecting any religion to receive greater benefits. If it is a basic tenent of American Indian religious beliefs to use drugs, then I think they should be allowed to do it. If it is a basic premise of being Wiccan to sacrifice animals, then I think it should be allowed. I think any of these examples can still be loosely regulated to also fit within acceptable society guidelines. Same with any Christian issue where it may conflict with societal law. I am not going to get all wrapped up in defending the Catholic church against being forced to provide coverage for contraceptives because I also agree that it should be up to their followers to apply the religion to themselves more than it is up to the church to make that decision for them. But, I am also sensitive to the church being forced to fund something that goes so against one of their basic beliefs. On this issue, it just so happens I disagree with my church. I fully get protecting unborn life but I don't totally get the problem with preventing egg fertilization. There is no denying that forcing an organization to fund something that is deeply against their beliefs does infringe on that organizations religious freedom. However, I can possibly see where in an issue like that, maybe it has to default to persons individual freedoms and maybe wouldn't apply to an organization. See I'm not unreasonable, I may have just slightly adjusted my thinking on this.

[BigRedBuster]

i respectfully disagree. first, religious freedom is more a freedom from religion.

 

WHAT????

 

Do you rewrite the constitution much?

 

The freedom OF religion is just that. People in this country have the right to practice what ever religion that is and the government does not have the right to tell them what religion that should be.

 

Freedom FROM religion implies that as a person in this country, I have the right to stop you from practicing your religion when I am present. Meaning, I have the right to freedom from your religion.

 

The constitution limits the government not the people.

[carlfense]

Freedom FROM religion implies that as a person in this country, I have the right to stop you from practicing your religion when I am present.

No it doesn't.

[BigRedBuster]

Yes it does.

 

There are certain people in this country that are starting to believe that they have the right to not have to see any religious symbol or act while in public. They believe that the constitution gives them the right FROM religion.

 

Now, if sd really means from his comment that the constitution limits the government from forcing a religion on you...then that is correct. But, that still is freedom OF religion and not FROM religion.

 

Freedom OF religion also protects atheists to believe as they so choose and the government doesn't have the right to force a religion on you.

[Junior]

Yes it does.

 

There are certain people in this country that are starting to believe that they have the right to not have to see any religious symbol or act while in public. They believe that the constitution gives them the right FROM religion.

 

Now, if sd really means from his comment that the constitution limits the government from forcing a religion on you...then that is correct. But, that still is freedom OF religion and not FROM religion.

 

Freedom OF religion also protects atheists to believe as they so choose and the government doesn't have the right to force a religion on you.

 

People believe they should not see religious symbols on public buildings/spaces. Such things are a tacit endorsement of a particular religion. There is a difference between this and people "believe that they have the right to not have to see any religious symbol or act while in public." You are free to go to the park and drop to your knees and pray to Jesus. People might look at you funny, but no one is going to stop you.