Political interference with Religion

[Rebel]

I have been singing this in my head every time I read this thread.

[Nyoibo]

My first thought on reading the title of this thread was "Well, religeon has been interfering with politics for years"

[PepperElf]

Actually, they don't. Religions that use the pulpit to attempt to directly influence politics run the risk of having their NPO status revoked.
During the last election, there were mulitple churches on both sides who had to be warned when the preachers started telling the congregations who they should vote for, and the LDS church has been under heavy scrutiny since the whole Prop 8 fiasco (which apparently got struch down today)
Unfortunately the big churches can buy their way out of trouble with their owned senators and congressmen, while the smaller ones actually take notice and at the least get more subtle

actually the letter wasn't a violation of this in my opinion.

There is nothing against the non-profit rules about a church taking a stance on pro-life/choice. nor is there anything against the rules about them openly discussing what they view to be a violation of their 1A religious rights.

please do not equate this with a church that say, openly invites politicians to stomp and sway voters during a sermon.


And another point.... why the change?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-religion

Speaking to eight religion reporters at the White House before his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI next Friday, Obama sought to reassure Catholic health-care workers that they would not be forced to perform abortions and other procedures that violate the Church's teachings. Obama said he is a "believer in conscience clauses" and supports a new policy that would "certainly not be weaker" than the rules in place before the expansion late in President George W. Bush's administration.

So... what, that was all just lip-service in order to get them to support obamacare? Perhaps to make people ignore the fact that he'd already announced plans to remove the clause just 5 months prior?

I mean think about it... He planned to roll-back the clause in February 2009. Then five months later in July he's telling Catholics they don't need to worry about it, that they won't be forced into doing anything against their faith?


So... what happened to that promise, eh? Was it just thin air?

[Racket_Man]

My first thought on reading the title of this thread was "Well, religeon has been interfering with politics for years"

THIS ^^^^^^ Why is it that RELIGION (take your pick but is seems to be the more fundimentalist versions) insert themselves into politics in many many ways but by the Flying Spag Monster and horrors upon horrors something for the good of everyone gets blasted.

THis is just like the uber religious pharamsists wanting to have "conscience clauses" written into their contract or work rules so they will NOT be required to fill prescriptions for birthcontrol or the morning after pills.

[Greenday]

I mean think about it... He planned to roll-back the clause in February 2009. Then five months later in July he's telling Catholics they don't need to worry about it, that they won't be forced into doing anything against their faith?


So... what happened to that promise, eh? Was it just thin air?

Is he forcing anyone to take birth control? I still don't get it. No one is telling churches what they have to believe or support. I feel like I'm missing something here.

[Glados]

Obama had promised to roll back conscious clauses for health care workers. They would no longer be allowed to refuse medical services based on their beliefs. He has gone back on that at this time. It is not forcing them to take birth control but to administer it. A catholic pharmacist would not be allowed to refuse if he rolled back the clause. Also, it would require that life-saving abortion services be performed against the wishes of the doctors. Currently, catholic hospitals (or maybe only some of them) do nto allow a fetus to be removed unless the fetal heartbeat has stopped. This decision can take the life of the mother in some cases.

[bunnyboy]

But the government isn't interfering with the Catholic Church. The non-profit Church doesn't have to endorse contraception.

Companies and organizations that just so happen to be endorsed or run by the Catholic Church are completely different. They are 'for profit', and as such, have to follow the word of the law of the land, which in this case includes the healthcare reforms.

Law of the land?

I seem to remember a certain Jewish carpenter's son in the early Imperial Period of Rome, who said something on the whole thing. In this case it was taxes, which were seen by his people as supporting idolatry, but it's actually applicable where law/state and religion come in a supposed conflict.

Give unto Caesar what is his, and unto God what is his.

[protege]

THIS ^^^^^^ Why is it that RELIGION (take your pick but is seems to be the more fundimentalist versions) insert themselves into politics in many many ways but by the Flying Spag Monster and horrors upon horrors something for the good of everyone gets blasted.

It's because the obnoxious self-righteous assholes tend to get elected. My feeling has always been, if religious groups (churches included) want to interfere in politics, they should lose their tax-exempt and non-profit statuses. Most, if not all of them, can easily afford to pay taxes (including the ones on properties) like everyone else. You want to play, you have to pay like everyone else.

[BlaqueKatt]

It says nothing about what the church, when operating as a church, can and cannot support.

My local Catholic hospital offers domestic partner health insurance.

The Casti Connubii, which is the vatican document that condemns the use of birth control was released in 1930-if the Catholic church was so horribly against it, they took an awfully long time to say so. It was going to be revised when vatican II came along, but the vatican counsel believed that if they changed it the poeple would take control away from the church because they "gave in to popular demand". So unless you truly believe all the members of the vatican counsel are inflatable and have a direct line to god(this was NOT a papal decree, but a counsel decision), the catholic church's ban on birth control is political and by no means "holy".

And by the way according to that document, you are never to be remarried, even if your spouse dies, and marriages that are for any reason OTHER than to have children, "are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. " It also goes on to say that women are NOT to be equal to men and to even think such a thing is a moral crime(part 74, read it before spouting "that doesn't apply anymore"), and that women are debased morally and spiritually by having a job, and that marriage is only to be between catholics and catholics, and any other arrangement is not a marriage. And my question was answered, according to this document, if any woman who is medically unable to have children becomes pregnant, god will reward the sacrifice of her life to overfilling, once she's dead(and if she does die, it was her fault for not praying hard enough-because "god won't ask anyone to do the impossible, and you must pray for the ability to complete the task).

But since it's pick and choose with most religions, I guess that's what we get here as well.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Well this just took yet another twist:

Republicans in congress are now planning to put forth a bill that would allow any insurance company to refuse to cover birth control

Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation that permits any employer to deny contraception coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.

“If we end up having to try to overcome the President’s opposition by legislation, of course I’d be happy to support it, and intend to support it,” McConnell said. “We’ll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.”

[Cymberleah]

Even better:

In a hearing on the matter of whether or not contraceptives should be covered by insurance, not ONE woman was allowed to speak.

Right. This is entirely about religious freedom.

[AdminAssistant]

Even better:

In a hearing on the matter of whether or not contraceptives should be covered by insurance, not ONE woman was allowed to speak.

And three of the speakers were a Bishop, a Reverend, and a Rabbi...which makes total sense for a hearing on medicine, right?

[Cymberleah]

Tangentially, it makes a great beginning for a joke. Too bad this is a situation that isn't a joking matter.

[HYHYBT]

And three of the speakers were a Bishop, a Reverend, and a Rabbi...which makes total sense for a hearing on medicine, right?

In a sense, it does. They don't see it as a medical issue, but a religious one. Therefore, it's religious leaders who speak on it... and the groups that don't approve of contraception also don't allow women in those roles.

[Nekojin]

My take on the whole matter:

Religions don't have beliefs. People do. A religion, much like a corporation, is incapable of DOING things itself. A religion doesn't build a church - people do. A religion doesn't sin - people do. And a religion doesn't use contraception - people do.

As such, the religion has no direct stake in the matter. This is a fight between people who want to have birth control covered, and other people who think that contraception is immoral. The latter group is free to not use birth control as they see fit. But they have no right to block state-mandated contraception for people who happen to work for them.

The people who object to it simply want to use the shield of their religion as a sword, to force their views on others.

Edit: And apologies for necro-posting. I didn't notice, when I was writing this, that the last response was two months ago. =>_<=