How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Another constitutional fracturing or no?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Another constitutional fracturing or no? Thoughts?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 02-02-2012 11:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Many of these letter include the following passage from the letter Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Va., and Bishop Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond, Va., have asked their priests to read at Mass this coming Sunday:

“In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing do). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

"We cannot - we will not - comply with this unjust law."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-vows-stand-obama-aga   inst-catholic-church-says-decision-forcing-catholics-act
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 02-03-2012 06:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The Catholic church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and the Catholic bishops of the United States have argued that forcing a Catholic individual to purchase a health insurance plan that covers these things--or forcing a Catholic institution to provide such a plan--forces Catholics to act against their consciences and is a violation of the First Amendment.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


2 posted 02-03-2012 06:28 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


It would be interesting to see
how many Catholics would be willing
to go to the lions on this . . .
and the arena's response.


Most Hispanics are Catholics of the old guard
That would be really interesting.


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


3 posted 02-03-2012 07:10 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Should a person whose religion holds that the taking of a human life is a sin get a tax exemption because a large proportion of his taxes go to funding the military?

What about someone whose religion forbids playing musical instruments, can they withhold state taxes because the proceeds go to schools that teach music?

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


4 posted 02-03-2012 07:25 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

This is a tough one for me.

On  the one hand, there's very little in the government's so-called Health Care Plan with which I can find agreement. And I think  it's always very dangerous to interfere with religious freedom.

However. The law doesn't target the religion, it merely includes it. Not as a religion, either, but as an employer. So long as any religion wants to employ people, it needs to obey related laws. Even if it disagrees with those laws.

More importantly, however, there is nothing in the law that forces Catholics to "act against their consciences."

Just as the Church is required to give their employees money, which can and I suspect often will be used contrary to religious doctrine, the new laws mandate that church employees be given the same free choice as all other employees in the nation. The law doesn't force anyone to avail themselves of sterilization, artificial contraception, or abortion. Those are still choices.

And they're probably not choices that should be made by one's employer.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


5 posted 02-03-2012 07:49 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


but as an employer. So long as any religion wants to employ people, it needs to obey related laws.


The alternative being?
Is Christ looking for a job?

A Catholic institution by law if it involves employing people
cannot not be Catholic?  How long then does Catholism exist?

Dumb Romans . . .  Why didnt they see this?


And where would Islam be
had there been government lawyers?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 02-03-2012 10:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Interesting stuff. Although I know of no religion that prohibits the playing of musical instruments, I have to agree with grinch...and Ron.

It appears the church's only choice on their moral ground is to drop health care for their employees. The the church can claim they are doing nothing to contribute to aiding and abetting abortions, etc and leave the choice to it's members. Of course, if it is mandatory for the members,although they, too, will have no choice, either.  Interesting that, since Obama has given over 1000 exemptions, he would not give one to the Catholics.

My only hope is that it will cost him votes...
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


7 posted 02-04-2012 06:33 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I know of no religion that prohibits the playing of musical instruments,


They're out there Mike, in surprisingly large numbers. My point though was that when you accept the logic being used by these particular religious folk you are forced to accept the claims of all religions based on the same precedent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291218/Muslim-pupils-taken-music-lessons-Islam-forbids-playing-instrument.html

quote:
Obama has given over 1000 exemptions, he would not give one to the Catholics.


As I understand it Mike, all houses of religion are exempt, including Catholic churches and their employees.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 02-04-2012 07:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If they are exempt, what are the bishops referring to?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


9 posted 02-04-2012 09:25 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Presumably they're referring to Catholic run institutions other than places of worship Mike because churches are definitely exempt.

In fact that's exactly how it works in the 28 states that already have these rules in place.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 02-04-2012 10:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

..and yet hundreds of institutions have been given exemptions.

Pelosi, of course, is as brain-damaged as she always is.

Pelosi: First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.

I suppose she thinks by saying that, it will erase the fact that her "fellow Catholics" are AGAINST the administration on this matter.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 02-05-2012 08:59 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://aclj.org/us-constitution/no-constitutional-rights-issues-violating-religious-liberties-white-house-doesnt-get-it
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


12 posted 02-05-2012 11:48 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

That's a really stupid article, Mike. Clearly, the author doesn't understand the issue at all.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


13 posted 02-05-2012 02:03 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I don't think they should be forced to use the health care plan if they don't wish to and it goes against their religion as it obviously does in this case.  What's the basis or justification for forcing them to accept it?  What's the basis or justification for not allowing them an exception?  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


14 posted 02-05-2012 02:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I don't think they should be forced to use the health care plan if they don't wish to


Should all the non-Catholics employed by Catholic institutions be forced to use a health care plan that doesn't include cover for contraceptives?

What about their religious freedom?

.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


15 posted 02-05-2012 02:45 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
Should all the non-Catholics employed by Catholic institutions be forced to use a health care plan that doesn't include cover for contraceptives?


No, it is up to the individual.  When he/she chooses to sign up at a specifically Catholic institution, shouldn't he/she use what is offered by and accords to the principles of that institution?  Why would someone expect something that goes against the institution's principles to be covered through that insitution?  If someone doesn't want to go by things that follow Catholic principles, he/she should go to a non-Catholic institution instead of expecting a Catholic institution to cover things that go against Catholic beliefs.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


16 posted 02-05-2012 03:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


So Muslim institutions should be able to insist that all female employees wear Burkas and that all employees pray three times a day to Mecca?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 02-05-2012 06:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Geoffrey Surtees is an attorney with the ACLJ and specializes in religious civil liberties. Geoff is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law and holds a Masters Degree in Theological Studies (summa laude) from the Pontifical Lateran University. Since joining the ACLJ as an attorney in 2001, Geoff has been active in a wide array of First Amendment cases, including the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators and public school students. He has also participated in cases involving the conscience rights of medical personnel and the religious rights of public and private employees.

The article certainly seems to be within his realm of expertise, Ron. I personally wouldn't be so quick as to refer to his thoughts as stupid or an indication that he has no idea what he's talking about - but that's just me.  

p.s.

Couldn't use the word between summa and laude due to the PIP obscenity filter.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


18 posted 02-05-2012 09:31 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

That just makes it worse, Mike. If he's not simply being stupid, he clearly thinks WE are. Surtees is being no less disingenuous in that article than Pelosi was in her equally silly response to the question put to her. The one you didn't much like?

Carney said I dont believe there are any constitutional rights issues here because the ruling doesn't target religion at all. It targets employers, and we all know there is absolutely no Constitutional provision protecting employers. The fact that my local dry cleaner is a devout Catholic doesn't make him exempt from the law, nor should any other employer be exempt because they personally don't agree with everything in the law.

With Surtees' background, he knows exactly why Carney made the response he did. Instead of arguing against that response, however, he expressed incredulity anyone could make it? At best he was being stupid, at worst he was being disingenuous, and in any event he was being dishonest with his readers.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


19 posted 02-06-2012 02:17 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
So Muslim institutions should be able to insist that all female employees wear Burkas and that all employees pray three times a day to Mecca?


Yes, they should be able to do so if they wish, just as other institutions are allowed to stipulate certain dresscodes and services.  Secular institutions should be able to insist on secular things and religious institutions should be able to insist on religious things.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


20 posted 02-06-2012 05:37 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

You really want to force people to pray three times a day, Essorant? In trying to protect the religious freedom of the institute, you are abandoning the religious freedom of the individual.

Still, we're getting a bit off-topic, I think. The issue here isn't about forcing employees to do something, or even about forcing them to NOT do something. The issue, rather, is about limiting their options. They can't force their employees to not use contraceptives. Instead, they're claiming their employees -- unlike every other employee in he workforce -- should have to pay for their contraceptives.

Personally, I don't believe employee benefits should be mandated by government. But if you are going to mandate them they should be mandated fairly for everyone.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


21 posted 02-06-2012 08:20 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


You don't have to take the job . . .


.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


22 posted 02-06-2012 12:32 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
you are abandoning the religious freedom of the individual.


The individual practices his religious freedom when he chooses to sign up for a religious institution.  If he signed up to one where burkas and prayers are insisted on as part of fullfilling the religious duties there, or where contraceptives may not be covered because it is against the religion, it is still his choice to partake in that institution or not.  He is making the wrong choice if he is partaking in an institution whose standards he doesn't believe in.  The religious freedom of a religious institution shouldn't be able to be abolished by an individual when he specifically has the choice to go or not to go to that institution based on whether he believes in what the institution includes and whether he wishes to be part of it or not.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


23 posted 02-06-2012 01:13 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

That argument would negate every law or regulation meant to protect the employee in the workplace. And there are a lot of them.

Below minimum wage? Don't take the job. No overtime pay? Don't take the job. They might decide to dock your pay this month for something beyond your control? Don't take the job. Unsafe working conditions? Don't take the job. The list goes on and on.

Even if that's the direction you really want to go, at least make an effort to be consistent. Protect everyone equally . . . or don't protect anyone. We shouldn't cherry pick who is or isn't going to be above the law.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


24 posted 02-06-2012 01:19 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Religious institutions are a constitutionally recognized exception.


.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Another constitutional fracturing or no?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors