religious employers must cover birth control

[diggitydot]

Probably not but that's the way the mop flops.

Totally. Stealing.

[v-girl]

I will practice my religion by not using an equally tacky response.

[GrayMatterWife]

Crawling in very cautiously:

FWIW: I think that a person's right to practice his faith in a way that is consistent with the tenants of that faith should take precedence of certain state interests (such as the interest of the state in having its citizenry have healthcare that meets certain universal standards). I think that the right to practice one's faith is a preeminent interest over the interest in healthcare.

I know a lot of people don't agree with me. I do see more than a little irony here. The right of privacy (which, legally, is the right to be left alone from state interference) was born not from the Constitution directly, but as an extrapolation by the Supreme Court of Constitutional concepts--and first took hold in the case of Griswold v Connecticut...the case dealing with the state regulation of birth control. Griswold's right to privacy then became the intellectual foundation of Roe v Wade, which of course determined that a state's prohibition on abortion was an improper interference with the right to privacy. And conservatives have been mocking the concept of a constructed right to privacy ever since. Now, one the strongest arguments outside the First Amendment for the unconstitutionality of the HHS rule were are debating is...that it infringes on a person's right to privacy...the right to practice one's religion without state interference.

[diggitydot]

Nope, not directed at you DD. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ah, gotcha.

Truthfully, I'm cool with agreeing to disagree, particularly where religious matters are concerned. I'm in no way trying to convince anyone that my opinions are any more valid than anyone else's -- just explaining said opinions.

[GrayMatterWife]

Edit: the below is NOT directed at any one in particular!! It posted AFTER Diggity posted, but I was drafting it while she posted. It is really just a general thought (I've been dealing with a LOT of very zealous lawyers lately...can you tell?)


Also, FWIW (as someone who has participated in professional mediations...): it might be productive for this debate for folks to try to walk in the shoes of a person with a different viewpoint. Try defending in your mind a position that you are absolutely opposed to. Be a mercenary advocate rather than someone with a personal investment in the position, and it might help in terms of appreciating the other side...even if you would never agree with them.

Plus, when you have to sell a viewpoint that you don't agree with, it forces you to face the weaknesses in your own position, and perhaps helps to you in the long run to create a stronger position. You are only as strong as your weakest argument...

[HouseofWool]

Crawling in very cautiously:

FWIW: I think that a person's right to practice his faith in a way that is consistent with the tenants of that faith should take precedence of certain state interests (such as the interest of the state in having its citizenry have healthcare that meets certain universal standards). I think that the right to practice one's faith is a preeminent interest over the interest in healthcare.

I know a lot of people don't agree with me. I do see more than a little irony here. The right of privacy (which, legally, is the right to be left alone from state interference) was born not from the Constitution directly, but as an extrapolation by the Supreme Court of Constitutional concepts--and first took hold in the case of Griswold v Connecticut...the case dealing with the state regulation of birth control. Griswold's right to privacy then became the intellectual foundation of Roe v Wade, which of course determined that a state's prohibition on abortion was an improper interference with the right to privacy. And conservatives have been mocking the concept of a constructed right to privacy ever since. Now, one the strongest arguments outside the First Amendment for the unconstitutionality of the HHS rule were are debating is...that it infringes on a person's right to privacy...the right to practice one's religion without state interference.

For the record, I am non-religious, but grew up catholic.

I have a question about your argument, not flaming, but I am hoping for clarification.

I would agree that the right to practice your religion as you see fit (as long as it doesn't involve things like pedophilia or human sacrifice) is one of the basic tenets of our constitution. But I don't understand how an organization acquires the same rights as a person. They are fundamentally two different things. If you are the single largest employer in a community, I don't see how that business should have the same rights as a person. Is there a piece of legislation somewhere that explains why a business gets the same protections as an individual?

[SuzySunshine]

GMW - you are so an attorney and I don't mean that in a bad way, you're obviously doing what you love and were meant to do!

[GrayMatterWife]

House of Wool: you are completely 100% correct. An artificial entity has no personal right to practice a religion. It is not an individual! At least, that's how I understand it. But, the church is composed of people that are organized to practice their faith, as collectively held. A business that the church (through its believes) operates is a practice of that faith, and the right to so practice--I would argue--is protected.

But that's just my argument. I can see the flip side of the coin, too.

[HouseofWool]

GMW - I see that, but I would argue that as a faith-based employer, when you hire someone from outside the faith and provide services to individuals outside the faith that it fundamentally changes the organization from simply being faith-based (not that it no longer is, just that the insulated community mentality no longer applies) to being that of a corporation which must follow a different set of rules.

[diggitydot]

But, the church is composed of people that are organized to practice their faith, as collectively held. A business that the church (through its believes) operates is a practice of that faith, and the right to so practice--I would argue--is protected.

I think religious institutions becoming businesses is a baaaaa idea because of all the ensuing legal/moral issues.

A church is a church. A business is a business. If they don't like the federal laws for businesses, don't become one. Just as I don't like the dogma that comes with religions so I choose not to be religious.

[Thirteen]

I have responded privately, outside of this thread, because I was afraid of stepping on toes or upsetting people.
As I keep reading, I find myself wincing more and more. I know this is in the debate forum, but I really like all of you, and it hurts me to see some of the posts get a little into "personal attack" territory.
"When Mommy and Daddy fight, I die a little inside."

[GrayMatterWife]

Yes, I concede that there is definitely an argument on the other side. I think it really will end up being a constitutional issue for the courts.

[PrincessFiona]

Don't feel badly. The debates do heat up at times and even though we vehemently disagree, we also care deeply for. Each other. Lol

Im sitting here with s box of tissues and hug for you.

Kris

[diggitydot]

Edit: the below is NOT directed at any one in particular!! It posted AFTER Diggity posted, but I was drafting it while she posted. It is really just a general thought (I've been dealing with a LOT of very zealous lawyers lately...can you tell?)

I didn't take as a comment towards me in anyway.

While I may disagree about religion with many of my iMSN peeps, I respect their views. I don't share them and typically don't "get" them, but I do respect the religious beliefs of others.

[SoonerTexan]

I don't expect anyone here to agree with the Church's teachings. I have shared what I know because it is obviously misunderstood and I don't mind trying to explain theme here. In fact, I'll do my best to explain the thinking behind the Churchs teachings on sexuality later in short form because I believe they are completely NOT what most think they are. I discovered them as a teen and they really shaped my relationship with my faith and my husband in a beautiful way. I believe in questioning your faith because It it cannot stand up to the scrutiny it probably is t worth believing in. It stood up and more.

However, please don't attack my religion, especially of you havent taken the time to figure out what it truly teaches. Much of what is common knowledge regarding the Catholic Church today consists of misinformed media soundbytes and bad experiences that are not representative of the whole church. The stance on birth control is a difficult one and not easy to understand. I was worried this thread would devolve into Church bashing and I'm sorry it has. I respect your right to your own beliefs and will not bash you for them as I love and respect the women on this board and don't want to hurt anyone. Please give us the same respect. Agree to disagree at least.