US Politics

[SixTwoSixFour]

I would argue that just because something is part of a religion, that doesn't mean the law should automatically bend to their preference. While you have a right to your religion, it should not trump the law, just like other personal beliefs don't.

Here in Sweden, religion does not trump the law. For example, the newly recognized piracy religion does not get a free pass from IP law.

 

It's not a matter of want, Johnny. This isn't a state law that can be changed at whim. This is the Bill of Rights. I won't say it's ironclad, there ARE ways to change it, but it's been twenty years since our last Amendment, and only ONE Amendment has ever been modified- the Eighteenth Amendment, Prohibition, which was repealed by the passing of the Twenty-First Amendment.

 

Do I agree that religion should not trump law? Yes. Doesn't really matter, though, because that's what the First Amendment says, and changing an Amendment is very nearly impossible.

[deanb]

Person living in a theocracy stepping in here: That's fucking stupid.

 

So my God, The almighty Hum of the PSU, who giveth power to the Ram and the Seepeeyoo, creator of the one true religion; Deanism, says that taxes are a mortal sin. One should not give money unto thy government. So that would mean I don't have to pay taxes right? As it'd be against my religion.

 

edIt: Just a (really late) addition. Wouldn't this actually be discrimination towards atheists? They've been provided less rights than those that are religious. The atheists values and beliefs are dismissed because they're not part of an official religion. Though of what I know of US law I guess this isn't the first time those of faith > everyone else. It does seem a rather biased system.

[Thursday Next]

But that's my point. I don't see where it violates their religion. They aren't forced to stock, provide or sell contraceptives, just reimburse people who have already bought them. If you can point out what part of religious dogma prevents this, then I'll happily accept it, but I honestly don't believe that there is any religious rule that prevents a Catholic Hospital from reimbursing someone for having purchased birth control.

 

I don't get what you're missing. Ethan has spelled it out quite a bit but I'll try one more time. By paying for it, they are enabling it. If I gave a drunken bum $10 he'll go buy a bottle of booze with it. That makes me an enabler into something I personally believe is wrong. Many people may turn the other way when someone DOES something they disagree with, but to encourage that by paying for it is quite another thing.

 

I'm missing the bit where giving another person an opportunity to sin is a restriction on your religious expression.

 

Basically, I think that the application of the rule is a load of old bollocks, if the Hospital don't want to provide for their staff to use contraception, then that's obviously legal. It doesn't make it any less of a dick move and in my opinion amounts to them forcing their beliefs on their staff. In my opinion a company forcing its will on individual employees is far worse than forcing a company to allow individual employees to do something that the company may not approve of.

[Yantelope V2]

I'm missing the bit where giving another person an opportunity to sin is a restriction on your religious expression.

 

Basically, I think that the application of the rule is a load of old bollocks, if the Hospital don't want to provide for their staff to use contraception, then that's obviously legal. It doesn't make it any less of a dick move and in my opinion amounts to them forcing their beliefs on their staff. In my opinion a company forcing its will on individual employees is far worse than forcing a company to allow individual employees to do something that the company may not approve of.

 

To use a more extreme example. If you give a guy a gun and watch him shoot someone with it and do nothing to stop him you're considered an accessory to murder. It's a crime in America at least. I think in this case the catholic church are considering themselves accessories to sin.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Thursday Next]

I'm missing the bit where giving another person an opportunity to sin is a restriction on your religious expression.

 

Basically, I think that the application of the rule is a load of old bollocks, if the Hospital don't want to provide for their staff to use contraception, then that's obviously legal. It doesn't make it any less of a dick move and in my opinion amounts to them forcing their beliefs on their staff. In my opinion a company forcing its will on individual employees is far worse than forcing a company to allow individual employees to do something that the company may not approve of.

 

To use a more extreme example. If you give a guy a gun and watch him shoot someone with it and do nothing to stop him you're considered an accessory to murder. It's a crime in America at least. I think in this case the catholic church are considering themselves accessories to sin.

 

But that's written down in statute. There is a law that states "thou shalt not give a dude a gun so that he may shoot someone."

 

There is not, to my knowledge a commandment that says "You shall spill your seed on the ground, and if you catch anyone else trying to do any different then by jingo you will make it inconvenient for them." unless there is.

 

I mean, if there is a something in the Bible that says "You must enforce God's will." or "You shall not suffer another to act against God's will." then sure, it would mean that the Church would have to break a rule so, there's some element of a case there. But all the Bible I remember from my CofE days was about "Spreading the Word." not "Enforcing the rules."

[Yantelope V2]

I mean, it all depends on your actions and what you deem your responsibility. There is a section in the bible about eating meat sacrificed to idols that basically says if what you do causes your brother to sin then don't do it because you don't want to cause someone else to sin.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

[Thursday Next]

It's "not-ruh dam". You pronounce it like Judy Dench has taken a job as a stenographer.

[TheMightyEthan]

I'm missing the bit where giving another person an opportunity to sin is a restriction on your religious expression.

 

Basically, I think that the application of the rule is a load of old bollocks, if the Hospital don't want to provide for their staff to use contraception, then that's obviously legal. It doesn't make it any less of a dick move and in my opinion amounts to them forcing their beliefs on their staff. In my opinion a company forcing its will on individual employees is far worse than forcing a company to allow individual employees to do something that the company may not approve of.

 

Okay, now that I think we're past the confusion, I can actually discuss my views on the issue: I agree with you. I don't think it's a non-issue, but recognizing the issue I still come to the same conclusion as you. I think the question should turn on whether the purpose of the organization is primarily secular or not. The Catholic Church should not be required to provide contraception to their employees if it violates their religious tenets, but a Catholic Hospital should (assuming you have a law saying employers in general have to). The reason being that requiring organizations with primarily religious purposes (the Church) to do something against their beliefs fundamentally impairs their ability to exercise their religion because the only way to avoid the requirement would be to not have the Church, and thus not be able to freely exercise their religion. Organizations with a primarily secular purpose, like hospitals (healing people is secular, even if your motivations for choosing to do so are religious), however, are not so fundamentally tied to the right of free exercise; if you feel that strongly about not paying for birth control then you're free to not be an employer, and because that is not a fundamental part of you exercising your religion your right of free exercise has not been unduly harmed.

 

@Dean: They can inquire into whether your claimed beliefs are actually your bona fide religious beliefs, or if you're just making shit up to avoid paying taxes. They can't say your beliefs are wrong, but they can try to determine whether you actually believe them.

[TheMightyEthan]

It's "not-ruh dam". You pronounce it like Judy Dench has taken a job as a stenographer.

 

I haven't watched the video, so I don't know if they're talking about the school or the cathedral, but the school's name is pronounced no-tur dame.

[SixTwoSixFour]

It's "not-ruh dam". You pronounce it like Judy Dench has taken a job as a stenographer.

 

Yeah... you're just flat wrong, sorry. It's French. He pronounces it right.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/how-rick-santorum-ripped-off-american-military-veterans

[deanb]

@Dean: They can inquire into whether your claimed beliefs are actually your bona fide religious beliefs, or if you're just making shit up to avoid paying taxes. They can't say your beliefs are wrong, but they can try to determine whether you actually believe them.

So how would they go about figuring if my beliefs are real?

Also if proven to be "real", would that honestly mean I'm now tax free?

 

As for the pronunciation, we're talking the French University of Noter Dame right?

[SixTwoSixFour]

As for the pronunciation, we're talking the French University of Noter Dame right?

 

There actually isn't a Notre Dame University in France, Dean. There's Notre Dame de Paris, a cathedral in Paris, but no university. Notre Dame du Lac is an American university, in Notre Dame, Indiana. There are also smaller Notre Dame universities in Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Haiti, Japan, Lebanon, and the Phillipines... just not France.

Edited February 21, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour

[deanb]

I know you're talking the one in Indiana. It's the only uni in US with the name "Notre Dame", but that's it "notre" not "noter". Also you're the one that said it's French

 

But yeah it's not-re. not no-tur.

[SixTwoSixFour]

I know you're talking the one in Indiana. It's the only uni in US with the name "Notre Dame", but that's it "notre" not "noter". Also you're the one that said it's French

 

But yeah it's not-re. not no-tur.

 

The name is French. Sorry, thought you meant the university itself.

[TheMightyEthan]

@Dean: No, you wouldn't actually be tax free. Basically the first amendment has been interpreted such that the government is allowed to make exceptions to the law for religious beliefs, but they're not required to. So like in a lot of places churches get a free pass to serve alcohol to minors during Communion, but the government could also say the normal alcohol age applies and you can't serve the wine to kids. The only things the government definitely can't do is make a law specifically to promote or hinder a religion, and it can't make rules about who a church can or must employ as ministers (which is why the Catholic Church can get away with not allowing female priests even though ordinarily that would violate anti-discrimination laws). Anything outside of that is one giant grey area, and the question of whether a law violates the first amendment in that regard often turns on how fundamental to the religion the belief or practice in question is and how important the aim of the law is. But as a general rule the government is allowed to apply laws of general applicability (you can't kill people, you must obey posted speed limits, no public nudity, etc) apply to religions even if it's in violation of their beliefs, but it is also allowed to make exceptions for the religious practice if it wants. Usually (but not always) that ends up with Christians and sometimes Jews getting exceptions and everyone else being SOL.

 

And the US school is pronounced "no-tur", even though that's not how the French word is pronounced. Proper nouns are funny like that.

[deanb]

Does seem a bit balls. Should be "One ring to rule them all". I guess it's a bit of feedback. You vote into powers those that align with your religion, with this power they allow various exceptions to the laws to your religion. Works out well for all. Except of course those in the "wrong" religion, or with no religion at all. Just seems pretty stupid. We have the same stuff on not having it count as discrimination for churches not to employ certain folks mind (and I'm sure the law extends beyond the church, should the job require either male or females). The contraception thing is pretty cut n dry on if it's hindering or not (not). They're neither forcing the BC upon the Catholics themselves, nor stepping in their way on letting them preach their beliefs to those the contraceptives are supplied to. Which stuff like that extends beyond religion. Such as advising that your client plead guilty, but they can still plead not guilty if they want.

 

Also as long as we're all clarified that the uni naming isn't French then

[Yantelope V2]

Yeah, US school is pronounced Note-rrrr Dame (as in lady). Cathedral is Notre daaaammm.

[TheMightyEthan]

We have the same stuff on not having it count as discrimination for churches not to employ certain folks mind (and I'm sure the law extends beyond the church, should the job require either male or females).

 

Well yeah, there are exceptions to anti-discrimination laws for what are called "bona fide occupational requirements", it's just those are pretty rare for straight-up gender discrimination. For instance a strip club could get away with only employing female (or male) dancers depending on what clientele they were targeting, but an otherwise normal restaurant can't get away with only employing female wait staff (though something like Hooters could).

 

More commonly the issue comes up with indirect discrimination, like saying that in order to be a firefighter you have to be able to carry a 200-lb unconscious person at least x distance in y amount of time. Obviously more men are going to be able to do that than women so it's effectively discriminating against women, but because that's an actual requirement of the job it's okay. You wouldn't, however, be able to get away with the same requirement for a secretarial job because it's not actually a requirement of the job.

 

It's just for any position that can be classified as a "minister" (so there's the obvious stuff like priests and rabbis and stuff, and also teachers at religious schools count, but the janitor doesn't) the religion is completely exempt from any requirements about who the can hire or fire and why, the justification being that who the ministers are is such a core part of exercising the religion that any government intrusion is too much and violates the first amendment.

[Yantelope V2]

It's helpful having a lawyer on staff here at PXOD.

[deanb]

It's helpful having a lawyer on staff here at PXOD.

By my count we have three. Ethan, GOH and Thursday.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

http://open.salon.com/blog/sarah_gale/2012/02/19/why_rick_santorum_would_have_killed_my_daughter_1

[Yantelope V2]

The whole article hinges on this statement "If Rick Santorum had his way, I wouldn’t have been able to get that test, and she most likely would have died. Because according to him, tests that give parents vital information about the health of their unborn children are morally wrong." What is the source of that?

[SixTwoSixFour]

The whole article hinges on this statement "If Rick Santorum had his way, I wouldn’t have been able to get that test, and she most likely would have died. Because according to him, tests that give parents vital information about the health of their unborn children are morally wrong." What is the source of that?

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444238-santorum-says-obama-looks-down-on-disabled-encouraging-more-abortions

 

Santorum says that the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion, and he thinks abortion is morally wrong, therefore he things prenatal testing is morally wrong.