14th March 2012

“Allowing religious employers to interfere in women's capacity for moral decision-making is an affront to conscience and an assault on religious freedom.”

Jon O'Brien

11 Responses to “14th March 2012”

  1. Capt'Z Says:

    I assume we’re talking about birth control here. How these moralizing pricks can be simultaneously against birth control and abortion defies explanation and marks these people as beyond argument.

  2. R J Says:

    YAY capt Z !!!!!

  3. The Heretic Says:

    Religious institutions have a right to make those decisions. A woman has a right not to work there. If people chose not to work there, maybe the institutions outlook would change. It is not up to us to tell them what to do; it is up to those who follow that religion.

  4. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    There is this gray area of concern and influence between the religious and the governmental where the line between where religious authority gets to operate freely and government can provide for the common defense is overlapped: A circle of governmental influence that resides within a circle of religious concern.

    In these instances religious groups must recognize that the unique religious beliefs within their concern are not always within their influence. The circle of influence belongs to our government (the people/all people), where fairness to all religious groups is protected through rejection of any specific religious establishment.

    As such religious institutions must never have any influence on public policy that stems from thier own unique religiousity.

    At best, employees of religious institutions have an individual right to reject birth control coverage but the chruch has no right to limit access to birth control coverage.

    Religious institutions not only have no right to choose what they will or will not insure, they do not even have a basis for establishing any such right.

    Rights belong to individuals not groups.

    Just as government can’t not impede any individuals right to practice religion freely, government can not establish an environment where people can not be free from religion. Government must serve the people only.

  5. Jeff Says:

    Thank you, Sinjin!!!

    You’ve restored my faith in conservatives!!! Understanding that the health care bill is EMPLOYMENT law, and that, as an employer, religious organizations have no more right to ignore any part of it than does General Electric! WOW, what a revelation! Further, to realize that freedom of religion is an INDIVIDUAL freedom, not a corporate one.

    Now, if we could just get the rest of the so-called conservatives out there to figure out the same things, this country would be about 100% better off.

  6. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    You are exactly correct Jeff! Groups don’t have rights, people do.

    Problem is as a “conservative” (small “c”) I’m a fiscal conservative. On social issues I’m progressive much like Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Frederick Douglas, Teddy Roosevelt, Jackie Robinson, et cetera.

    I think history shows the original Republicans were socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

    It was the southern Democrat that championed the social conservative, evangelical, discriminatory and illogical biblically inspired non-sense. These Confederate soldiers of theocracy abandoned the Democrats for republicans on promises of public works money in the 1964 election.

    Thus was born, from the small party from the Northeast US a monster of social intolerance that is simply a retarding of human development.

    It goes against everything Republican’s ever stood for to attempt to engineering the social and moral options of the masses.

    My take on biblical literalism would show god as having little regard for life. God has repeated examples in the bible of his brutal eradication of innocent women and children. Seems to me that being against abortion and also being a person of faith is a contradiction. God is completely comfortable with casually dispatching the lives of the unborn. Religious people really should read the bible.

  7. The Heretic Says:

    First of all, Obamacare is unconstitutional with its mandate requiring all persons to purchase a good/service whether they want to or not. Hopefully the Supreme Court will also judge it that way.

    Second, business can purchase any kind of health insurance – or none – that they want to. You, and others who think as you do, have no right to tell them otherwise. You may not think of a religious business/institution as a business, but it is. It may be peddling something that I think is fraudulent, but then I think dog psychologists are fraudulent too. I patronize neither. Now, I also think these institutions need to be taxed as a business, but I digress.

    Just because you believe something, and that runs counter to what other persons/businesses believe, does not mean that you have the right to tell them how to conduct themselves/their businesses as long as they are not breaking any laws. It is called FREEDOM. If you do not like their idea of freedom, patronize someone else. Others have the right to do the same. Leave the holier than thou Big Brother attitude to other countries.

    I am sick and tired of people who think we need a nanny state. Some people are convinced that they could run my life better than I do. I don’t agree with organized religion, if anything, I have disdain for them. But, it is not my right to tell them how to conduct their affairs when they are not bothering me. If people of a particular faith wish to patronize or work for these institutions, then they are making a choice to do so. If they don’t like it – they can leave.

  8. Dan Says:

    TH,
    You getting healthcare insurance violates your rights?

    I’m pretty sure you’d change your mind if you were confronted with a choice of you health or your life savings.

  9. The Heretic Says:

    It is not a right.

  10. Dan Says:

    You’re correct, it is not a right. But your position is heartless, and lacks responsible management of care, which is more costly in the long run to private hospitals and caregivers as they’ll be forced to provide lifesaving care to the seriously ill and uninsured anyway.

  11. Dan Says:

    And you’d still change your mind if it were your choice to face losing your health or your life savings.