Liberty under fire...again...

1. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

   excerpt from article about Obama trying to force Catholics to do things against their beliefs...
   
   "...It’s not just rabid right-wing politicos defying the Obama machine. Pro-life Democratic senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania denounced the “wrong decision.” Left-leaning Bishop Robert Lynch threatened “civil disobedience” in St. Petersburg, Fla., over the power grab. Lefty Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote that Obama “botched” the controversy and “threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus” by refusing to “balance the competing liberty interests here.”
   
   http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ … lle-malkin

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      At first glance, this is atrocious.  Govt. has no right to interfere in the internal workings of a church.  But it is perhaps not so simple as that...
      
      A business, hiring employees, is not a place of worship - it is not a church.  The owners may be religious, but a business is not.
      
      Businesses and even churches have long been required to hire without regard to the employees religion, even though many would much prefer to hire only from their own faith.  It is not uncommon, in fact, to find just that practice in small localities that are predominantly of one faith.  Is this really that much different?
      
      Then there is the matter of doctors and pharmacists - they may refuse to offer services or drugs that interfere with their faith.  Many, if not most, hospitals are faith based - will they soon refuse to perform vasectomies or tubal ligations?  Refuse to transplant a lung or liver ruined by the evils of smoking or drinking?  Refuse to treat an aids patient because he is gay and the disease is thus God's judgement?
      
      How far do we let a business operated by a religious organization go?  Should we allow them to force their beliefs on employees?  Or to require them to operate their business on the same playing field that all other businesses in the country use? 
      
      In particular what about when they have a virtual local monopoly?  In my area, I believe that every hospital for hundreds of miles is faith based - can they reasonably use their faith to control medical treatment?  Or to control the doctors and nurses that they hire?

      replyreport
      1. 62

         American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness,
         
         "Then there is the matter of doctors and pharmacists - they may refuse to offer services or drugs that interfere with their faith.  Many, if not most, hospitals are faith based - will they soon refuse to perform vasectomies or tubal ligations?"
         
         Actually, Catholic based hospitals have been refusing to do these and other procedures for as long as I can remember.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Businesses are allowed to be religious. Even if it's against the law, they're allowed to be religious.

         replyreport
   2. 58

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm of a dual mind about this.
      
      The government stepping into the private religiously ran schools and universities is wrong if the institutions do not receive government funding.  If they DO receive public funding, then they have essentially agreed to the terms that come with that funding.  In short, if you want to eat from the government trough, then you have to follow their rules.
      
      Hospitals and medical clinics are a completely different matter.  They are part of the country's infrastructure and as such, their first priority should be public health, not religious beliefs.  You simply cannot run a medical facility with anything but the interests of your patients in your mind.  As such, all available medical technology should be available.  The clergy is as uninformed about medical care as any other layman and should be kept completely away from that process.
      
      On a personal note, until recently I lived in an area where a Catholic hospital was the only hospital in a sixty mile radius.  I shudder to think what happens to the 15 year old rape victim that must add an hour and a half drive each way to have her rape kit processed and be given the "abortion" pill before getting a chance to shower and rest. Never mind the legal ramifications that come from being treated in a different jurisdiction from where the rape occurred.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         +1
         
         I might even add that if private, religiously run, schools or other business receive any government benefits (tax reductions, perhaps) they are still feeding at the government trough.  Whether it comes in the form of cash gifts or other benefits that reduce the cost of business doesn't make much difference.

         replyreport
      2. 74

         Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It's not a simple cut-and-dried issue. We need to think about not only the rights of the employer but also those of the employee.
         
         I agree that if a business or other institution accepts federal money, then they have to abide by federal guidelines. That works for schools, hospitals, contractors, what have you.
         
         On an unrelated note, I had to comment on this:
         
         "The clergy is as uninformed about medical care as any other layman and should be kept completely away from that process."
         
         The word layman used to refer to churchgoers who were not clergy, as opposed to the priests/nuns who have taken holy orders. Only now it gets used for anyone who isn't part of a particular profession, and we ask lawyers or scientists to explain things in "layman's terms." I just found it interesting that we're using the word "layman" to refer to members of the clergy. Funny how language evolves, innit?
         
         Also, it's my understanding that members of the Jesuit order are required to have another profession besides that of priest. Many of them are doctors.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If a business accepts federal funding, then the Federal Government has acted unconstitutionally.

            replyreport
2. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

   ...no one is suppose to control any one, that is the point.Wwhen i can't get the health care things I want ( I am only interested in alternative and natural health care), I don't go to the places I know I can't what I want, I go to where I can get what I want. There is always going to be someone, some clinic or hospital that will offer what a particular person wants.
   Sorry, you can't talk away rights and liberty with sympathetic concerns.
   
   I agree, it is a messy situation to sort out a business from the profession of medicine concerning these types of issues. But, it is not the answer to force someone to go against their conscience.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Sparkling, that is part of my point - there is no other hospital within a reasonable distance.  The next good sized city to me is Salt Lake City, where I doubt you will find any but faith based hospitals, and that is 400 miles!
      
      Not all the population lives in metropolitan areas with multiple hospitals giving a choice of care - most of us do not have that luxury.  Add in that some things are an emergency, and it becomes a very thorny problem.

      replyreport
3. 77

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   If they want to discriminate against women, let them cease and decist from all Federal dollars!
   
   Even though women pay with their own money--they are treated as second class.
   
   Sick of it.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      LMC,
      
      What are you talking about??

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sorryyy...I was getting abortion confused with birth control! But come to think of it...they tie in completely.
         More birth control, less abortion.
         
         And I find it highly discriminatory that Viagra is covered, but not birth control....
         
         Viagra out of wed-lock?? Isn't that wrong too?

         replyreport
         1. 62

            American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            LMC,
            
            No problem, I just was not sure what you meant, thanks for clearifying.
            
            I admit I do not know what healthcare plans cover and not cover, But I would agree, if Viagra is covered and birth control is not, that would be wrong. I would have a hard time thinking healthcare plans cover Viagra, but it is possible

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You know what they say AV....it's a mans' world

               replyreport
4. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

   there are always answers to the problems...work on them to sort it out, not run over another's liberty with big gestures and laws that don't take the perspectives into consideration. all sides are responsible to do so.

   replyreport