Log In | Register
This is a really old story, but let me tell you anyway.
When I was first married, my mother-in-law sat down at her kitchen table and told me about the day she went to confession and told the priest that she and her husband were using birth control. She had several young children, times were difficult — really, she could have produced a list of reasons longer than your arm.
Tales From the Kitchen Table: Religions don't get to force their particular dogma on the larger public
Seeded on Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:12 AM EST
Article Source: The New York Times
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (24)
We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?
- 2 votes
#1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:12 AM ESTMs CYPRAH,
As usual you manage to come up with topics that are incisive. : )
To my mind, this is a crucial topic concerning who we are as a nation. The stakes? Individual freedom. Where it gets complicated is who's individual freedom are we speaking of?
Under the constitution, the Catholic religion has a right to exist within our country. Supposedly, the government does not have the right to dictate what that religion believes. However, the government does have the responsibility to dictate how that religion can act within the framework within the laws established by that constitution.
For instance, as a purely hypothecical example, the Catholic faith may dictate that heretics must be burned at the stake. The government has no business in attempting to legislate for or against such belief. However, the government is perfectly justified in preventing such beliefs from being carried out, based on the constitution.
Does this apply to the case of contraception, however? One can make a case that the Catholic position on contraception interferes with the constitutional guarantee on the pursuit of individual liberty but even so, only at the expense of religious liberty, another constitutionally guaranteed right.
It seems to me that the argument comes down to this. A person who voluntarily works for a religious organization that does not condone contraception wants, on the basis of their perceived rights, to force that organization to provide what it does not believe in. Whose rights prevail?
Personally, I believe that someone who accepts employment at a religious institution is making the statement they support that institution as their work is intended to benefit that organization. If you do not believe in the intsitution or it's policies, you should not work there. You are not forced to accept a position there. Therefore if you do, then you should abide by their policies.
This belief is why I would never work for a white supremicist organization. Sure, I could say I'm just there for the paycheck, but I'm not so superficial. Working for Subway is no big deal. Their purpose for existing is making money. Ideology is not a part of it. Working for a religious organization is different. They, presumably, are not in it for money but ideology. If I cannot accept their idiology, I should not work there, or if I do, I should not conplain about their policies.
- 2 votes
Personally, I believe that someone who accepts employment at a religious institution is making the statement they support that institution as their work is intended to benefit that organisation.
Agreed, regarding their SUPPORT of that organisation, but they have not handed over responsibility for their own lives to that organisation, have they? So why should they lose out on any legal policy which affects them?
Thanks for the input.
- 1 vote
Agreed, regarding their SUPPORT of that organisation, but they have not handed over responsibility for their own lives to that organisation, have they? So why should they lose out on any legal policy which affects them?
A legitimate question. Can it be easily answered? Probably not. My preference is that the government stay out of it. Rather, as your article indicates, even within the Catholic religion, most Catholics ignore the contraception ban. I would prefer that Catholics force the change themselves, rather than an intrusive government.
The fact that that the Catholic Church resists what it's parishioners already know is part of why I have a problem with Catholicism. Rather than the individual following God by their own understanding and conceince they dictate what must be believed. Quite often without any apparent biblical support.
- 2 votes
Rather than the individual following God by their own understanding and conceince they dictate what must be believed. Quite often without any apparent biblical support.
It's all about power! The bid to control people's lives, even where it isn't necessary! If they got our of people's bedrooms, they would perhaps have far more converts.
- 1 vote
Currently under US law St Whatis Hospital and many schools run by Catholics are not classified as a "religious organization" and is compelled under the same laws as Wal-Mart. I would concede to the religious community if they wanted to push schools and universities to be under the "religious organization" umbrella to allow it without argument as they are as likely to teach dogma as not. But hopitals and other public businesses run for profit should not.
- 1 vote
Now I understand from new comments made today that the issue they are pushing is not for "religious organizations" but for all business owners that may have a religious objection to providing this type of coverage. It's all about their "freedom" to control other people's attitudes and actions.
- 1 vote
evilgenius
But hopitals and other public businesses run for profit should not.
Why not? I could agree with you if their motive for operating the hostpital was only for profit, but if not? That is the conundrum. Government involvement eliminates motive. It is dictating one's motive for any action. The danger in allowing government to dictate what is right or wrong is that it takes the burden of determining the same off the citizen.
- 2 votes
Drakkonis, by remarks made today the Bishops Councils it's aims are to place religious exemption status for all employers into law. By that reasoning I could refuse any number of things such as refusing to promote (or even employ women all together) because my religion says they should be subservient to men. Where do we draw the line between government, religion, employer, employee and customer?
- 2 votes
evilgenius
A good question. Unfortunately there is no easy answer. No matter what you do, you're enforcing one viewpoint upon another. The very thing our constitution is supposed to be against. My answer is that each should to the best they can. My own view is that I must do what I believe is right, regardless of what others think. At the same time, I cannot impose what I think is right upon others. It is something they must choose themselves. That is what I think the constitution was aiming for.
- 3 votes
My answer is that each should to the best they can. My own view is that I must do what I believe is right, regardless of what others think. At the same time, I cannot impose what I think is right upon others. It is something they must choose themselves.
A very noble sentiment! I don't ask people what their political or religious views are (outside of NewsVine LOL) when dealing with people out in public. It isn't any of my business. I want to be kind, courteous and caring - even if I don't agree with them or they with me. If we all spent more time trying to be a better person and living life as a good example and role model instead of telling others what they should and shouldn't do - we'd all be better for it.
- 1 vote
Now I understand from new comments made today that the issue they are pushing is not for "religious organizations" but for all business owners that may have a religious objection to providing this type of coverage. It's all about their "freedom" to control other people's attitudes and actions.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. Take the homosexuality issue for instance. Current political efforts mandate that all accept it as moral. This is indicated in that business owners cannot refuse service to what they object to. While laws generally exclude religious organizations from being forced to conduct weddings that are same sex, a photographer can be sued for refusing to photograph a same sex marriage. To me, this is government mandating morality upon us all.
I agree that the constitution does not prevent same sex couples from marrying. At the same time, a photographer's right to determine for themselves what is moral is removed from them by the government under the pretext that a business has no right to decide whom it may serve. How is this considered freedom? How many times have you seen a sign in a business indicating it's right on deciding to whom it will offer service? Yet when homosexuality is involved, this right is non-existent. Why? It isn't as if the homosexual would have undue hardship in finding someone who would be willing to serve as photographer. In reality, the suit would not be for not agreeing to render services, but rather for the attitude of the photographers morality. That is, legal efforts would be for punitive efforts to punish those who do not believe what they do.
- 1 vote
#2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:43 PM ESTCan that photographer refuse to take pictures at a wedding based on race? At one time many sects of Christianity preached that women had no soul, can I refuse service to women? The prevailing attitude is not to discriminate based on race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.
Race, religion and sex have already made arguments on why they shouldn't be discriminated against and now have "government protection". The LGBT is arguing that bias against them is as baseless as bias against race and gender and I haven't seen a non-religious compelling argument as to why they shouldn't be included.
Using this argument of business religious exclusion, imo, put us on a path of regression. Either a business caters to all the public follows all the rules or it doesn't do business is my thought.
- 1 vote
Can that photographer refuse to take pictures at a wedding based on race? At one time many sects of Christianity preached that women had no soul, can I refuse service to women? The prevailing attitude is not to discriminate based on race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.
Excellent example!
- 1 vote
Can that photographer refuse to take pictures at a wedding based on race? At one time many sects of Christianity preached that women had no soul, can I refuse service to women? The prevailing attitude is not to discriminate based on race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.
I do not condone refusual to take picures based on race. In spite of that, freedom dictates that those who feel that way should not be forced to do so. You cannot have both freedom and a "mutually held belief system", whatever that may mean. It is the paradox of trying to combine freedom with morality. That is, everyone has their view of what is moral. Imposing morality via governement is not exactly immoral but neither is it the best solution available to us.
As a Christian, I've come to the belief that man cannot determine what is moral. I believe morality is the province of God and I strive to learn what that morality is. My wish is that others would feel the same. It would put us all on the same page, potentially.
- 2 votes
I believe morality is the province of God and I strive to learn what that morality is.
And what if you don't believe in God, like per 70% of the UK?
- 2 votes
Imposing morality via governement is not exactly immoral but neither is it the best solution available to us.
Legistlating rules and morality is exactly what societies do to co-exist. They put up rules and give people the authority to see them followed. Anything else is Anarchy. Now we can argue what rules, or morals, should be governed and what should be left to individual conscience, but let's not pretend that people will always do the right thing for the right reasons.
As a Christian, I've come to the belief that man cannot determine what is moral. I believe morality is the province of God and I strive to learn what that morality is.
Morality has been such a fluid concept throughout human history that one must logically conclude God (if one exists) hasn't had a lot of input on the subject. As I alluded to above there are basic tenants that all societies have put forward for people to co-exist - murder and theft for example - but by and large most everything else has been "moral" at one point or another. I can even find plenty of examples of where murder wasn't really considered murder as one society dehumanized another - apparently all with God's approval.
This isn't a whack at religion, but an unbiased view of human history. We are a curious bunch at best.
- 2 votes
by and large most everything else has been "moral" at one point or another. I can even find plenty of examples of where murder wasn't really considered murder as one society dehumanized another - apparently all with God's approval.
Indeed. Well noted.
I think many people tend to forget that all these morals we are boasting now weren't there since the dawn of time. They have EVOLVED to suit society's priorities, just like humanity. Goodness knows what will be our 'morals' in a hundred years time!
Some people are having difficulty with 'morals' because technology has changed our world so much, we are in transition, seeking new acceptable forms of behaviour agreed by the majority. Until then, it will be a confusing and stressful time.
- 2 votes
Some people are having difficulty with 'morals' because technology has changed our world so much, we are in transition, seeking new acceptable forms of behaviour agreed by the majority. Until then, it will be a confusing and stressful time.
Absolutely. At the same time, (here in the US anyway) the country has been moved so far to the right, some of them feel emboldened to push it even further and are meeting with heavy resistance. It's making normally rational people seem quite insane - on both sides of these issues.
- 2 votes
And what if you don't believe in God, like per 70% of the UK?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Legistlating rules and morality is exactly what societies do to co-exist. They put up rules and give people the authority to see them followed. Anything else is Anarchy. Now we can argue what rules, or morals, should be governed and what should be left to individual conscience, but let's not pretend that people will always do the right thing for the right reasons.
Of course not and you're also right in what you've said. Even so, although it is demostratably necessary for a society to "legislate rules and morality" it does not, in my opinion, produce the best outcome. The best outcome would be an individual persuaded to act morally on their own rather than forcing them through laws. Of course, this leads us right back to the problem of what is moral. Which leads us back to societal laws. This gives us another problem of where do we draw the line in taking away an individuals freedoms to act according to their beliefs in favor of whatever societal laws are enacted.
Although I disagree with the Catholic stance on contraception, I do not believe it is right to force them to act against their morals in this case. Contraception is easily aquired elsewhere and although you may have to pay for it I don't believe it is prohibitive for most people. For the ones who can't I'd prefer to see government assistance rather that government force. Especially since this is a religious issue.
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
You mentioned turning to God for your morals, hence my question.
- 1 vote
Um, still not sure I'm getting you. I do turn to God for lessons on His morality and how I should behave. What does 70% of the UK have to do with that? Unless you think I mean it should be forced on them? No. It's a choice one makes for themselves, not others. The other 70% are going to go by whatever they go by.
The other 70% are going to go by whatever they go by.
Thank you, because we do! :o)
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
