MarkDaSpark wrote:A sin is a sin is a sin. Allowing someone is just as much of a sin as doing it yourself.

So...an important part of religious freedom for this particular group is "not allowing" other people to sin. Do you think that freedom should be absolute? Other people have rights too.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Why? Fuzzy logic like that is the main problem with the Occupy Movement. Someone else makes more money than me and that's not right!


The point is that Religion is supposed to stay out of Gov't, and Gov't is supposed to stay out of Religion. And by forcing companies to carry BC, they are violating that.

Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

A catholic hospital isnt the catholic church. Its a BUSINESS owned by the church. If the church opened a chain of Crispy Fried Heathens restaurants, would it be tax free? Would they have to pass health inspections? No, because its a business.

I know the Catholic schools refuse all government aid, because if they take it, they gotta pay by the governments rules.

Or as your fond of saying, no pay no play. If the business hospital owned by the church takes federal funds for anything, they gotta play by the rules. They wanna forgo aid, they can do whatever the balance the budget they want.

Easier access to birth control has a direct balance the budgeting impact in abortion rates anyway. Which do you think the church prefers, rubbers and pills or abortions?

chemvictim wrote:So...an important part of religious freedom for this particular group is "not allowing" other people to sin. Do you think that freedom should be absolute? Other people have rights too.

No, it's not contributing to it. Which seems to be the point everyone is missing.


Does anyone else think it's ironic that it's "Ok" for the gov't to intervene with forcing a company to violate their religious beliefs, but are against the gov't intervening in lady parts?

Because it's just a hairbreadth away to say "We need more babies in this country, so we have can't have Abortions, so that we eventually have more people paying in so Social Security doesn't go bankrupt."

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, it's not contributing to it. Which seems to be the point everyone is missing.


Does anyone else think it's ironic that it's "Ok" for the gov't to intervene with forcing a company to violate their religious beliefs, but are against the gov't intervening in lady parts?

Because it's just a hairbreadth away to say "We need more babies in this country, so we have can't have Abortions, so that we eventually have more people paying in so Social Security doesn't go bankrupt."

Okay, well we just disagree. I don't see any way around it. I don't think the employer is contributing to my harlotry via health insurance to any greater extent than they're contributing via my salary. I don't think the employer is being forced to violate his religious beliefs - unless we interpret his religious belief as a requirement that he interfere with other people. In that case, yeah...sorry religious people. I do not support your right to mess with me.

And for your last paragraph - well, duh. And wars. Don't forget wars.

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, it's not contributing to it. Which seems to be the point everyone is missing.


Does anyone else think it's ironic that it's "Ok" for the gov't to intervene with forcing a company to violate their religious beliefs, but are against the gov't intervening in lady parts?

Because it's just a hairbreadth away to say "We need more babies in this country, so we have can't have Abortions, so that we eventually have more people paying in so Social Security doesn't go bankrupt."

Maybe Catholic hospitals should only hire Catholics, then even if they're forced to "provide" it through their insurance they won't have to worry about their employees committing that most heinous of sins and using it. Cause as we all know, NO Catholic ever does anything outside of the all knowing all seeing all powerful Church.

Edit: Ooooohhh, even better. The Catholic Business Hospital can just make it a condition of employment. If you work here you can't use contraception, and if we catch you doing it we're gonna flay your ass like the Spanish Inquisition up in this motherbalance the budgeter.

chemvictim wrote:Okay, well we just disagree. I don't see any way around it. I don't think the employer is contributing to my harlotry via health insurance to any greater extent than they're contributing via my salary. I don't think the employer is being forced to violate his religious beliefs - unless we interpret his religious belief as a requirement that he interfere with other people. In that case, yeah...sorry religious people. I do not support your right to mess with me.

And for your last paragraph - well, duh. And wars. Don't forget wars.

I think this is where we stand vis a vis Sparky. His interpretation of religious freedom and ours are diametrically opposed.

I'm not sure where the religious sliding scale leads, though. And I'm genuinely curious. And i don't mean to make a "slippery slope argument, although I don't think I am. An employer providing health insurance which provides BC isn't ok. Is buying drugs from a company that also does BC research ok? What about frequenting a restaurant whose employees are given BC? Isn't buying food at that restaurant in turn funding the insurance plan that provides BC?

bhodilee wrote:A Easier access to birth control has a direct balance the budgeting impact in abortion rates anyway. Which do you think the church prefers, rubbers and pills or abortions?

This is a logical argument which, by and large, religious institutions don't do well with; at least in my experience. Remember the Catholic church's reaction when the Pope said that comment about condoms and make prostitutes? In your argument, I truly think the church would cut off its nose to spite its face, if you will.

kylemittskus wrote:I think this is where we stand vis a vis Sparky. His interpretation of religious freedom and ours are diametrically opposed.

I'm not sure where the religious sliding scale leads, though. And I'm genuinely curious. And i don't mean to make a "slippery slope argument, although I don't think I am. An employer providing health insurance which provides BC isn't ok. Is buying drugs from a company that also does BC research ok? What about frequenting a restaurant whose employees are given BC? Isn't buying food at that restaurant in turn funding the insurance plan that provides BC?

Hmmm...well to me, one is as reasonable as the other. Those things are not gov't mandated, but if you want to go the indirect, convoluted route (which appears necessary to get riled up about the insurance), you can find plenty of examples of gov't spending which are sure to offend somebody.

I can entertain the idea that gov't mandates for insurance companies are bad overall. As in, it's not proper for gov't to require insurance to cover anything, because freedom. I'm not convinced about this contraception vs. religion thing, though. I think it's just one possible way to approach protesting the mandate. The fact that it's contraception (cue scary music) just makes it more fun for everyone. I hear a lot of noise about birth control pills and abortions, but I haven't heard much of anybody complaining about insurance paying for vasectomies. The snippy-snip is just as anti-Catholic as other forms of birth control, but no one cares.

kylemittskus wrote:I think this is where we stand vis a vis Sparky. His interpretation of religious freedom and ours are diametrically opposed.

I'm not sure where the religious sliding scale leads, though. And I'm genuinely curious. And i don't mean to make a "slippery slope argument, although I don't think I am. An employer providing health insurance which provides BC isn't ok. Is buying drugs from a company that also does BC research ok? What about frequenting a restaurant whose employees are given BC? Isn't buying food at that restaurant in turn funding the insurance plan that provides BC?

Well don't forget, condoning gay marriage also leads to people marrying rocks and horses and dogs and space aliens and kids and all other manner of stupidity in the churches eye so you're not exactly dealing with the most logical of institutions.

I find most "slippery slopes" have an incline of about 3 degrees. They might be slippery, but no one is sliding down them without a running start.

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, it's not contributing to it. Which seems to be the point everyone is missing.


Does anyone else think it's ironic that it's "Ok" for the gov't to intervene with forcing a company to violate their religious beliefs, but are against the gov't intervening in lady parts?

Because it's just a hairbreadth away to say "We need more babies in this country, so we have can't have Abortions, so that we eventually have more people paying in so Social Security doesn't go bankrupt."

My insurance covers smoking cessation methods. By your logic my insurance company condones smoking. I can honestly say I've never been tempted to start smoking because my insurance company will help pay for me to kick the habit.

Also, Social Security isnt' self funding, if they mandated more babies to pay for it, it wouldn't do any good (not that I believe the govmint realizes this).

And how is making something available contributing to it? The Church makes wine available, therefore the church contributes to alcoholism and drinking and driving. Slippery slopes and all.

I just don't buy the whole religious intrusion thing. Especially from a church hospital standpoint. Anyone who truly believes any church hospital is nothing more than a funding source for the church is mistaken. Try going there without insurance and tell me how far you get.

chemvictim wrote:Okay, well we just disagree. I don't see any way around it. I don't think the employer is contributing to my harlotry via health insurance to any greater extent than they're contributing via my salary. I don't think the employer is being forced to violate his religious beliefs - unless we interpret his religious belief as a requirement that he interfere with other people. In that case, yeah...sorry religious people. I do not support your right to mess with me.

And for your last paragraph - well, duh. And wars. Don't forget wars.

But you support your right to mess with others? Harlot!!


So much for the libertarians in the group, since I thought that the idea was to "keep" most gov't interference out of our lives. Yet each of you seem to think it's okay to enforce your social vision on others, but not let other's enforce their social vision on you.

And that was the point I have been trying to get across. That it is wrong in both instances (lady parts laws AND forcing one to provide BC). But all of you seem to think that it's okay to enforce your social vision on others when it doesn't match your GroupThink.


And by the way, Vasectomy IS considered as a Contraceptive by the Church, and would be a Sin.

chemvictim wrote:So...an important part of religious freedom for this particular group is "not allowing" other people to sin. Do you think that freedom should be absolute? Other people have rights too.

Yet you seem to only allow people you agree with to have those rights, and those that disagree, don't have any.

It's not "allowing" that's the issue. It's the being forced to "assist" with it that's the problem.

And Bowtie, Religion doesn't end at the Church door. Or property line. Most Church Hospitals are considered arms of said Church, especially those that have Nuns as nursing staff.

Yes they are businesses, but they are also extensions of the Religion.



And try going to ANY hospital and not paying.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Yet each of you seem to think it's okay to enforce your social vision on others, but not let other's enforce their social vision on you.

My social vision is that people can get the kind of health care they want/need without interference from anybody. Let the government run it, or let health insurance companies run it, or let people choose freely among any plan they can find...I don't particularly care. But my employer has no right to dictate the kind of health insurance I get simply because of their religion. They pay my wages, they don't own my life or soul.

PS Port *may* be making me punchy...

joelsisk wrote:But you don't explain how the opposite circumstance works, MORALLY. I as the biological father want to keep the baby. The biological mother has 100% say, and so decides to abort. Or even the most dramatic situation where the women keeps the fetus, gives birth, and then abandons the child. I am honestly curious about your response to any of the many similar "gender reversed" situations.

In my opinion, the woman has the capability to carry the baby, the woman has the right to make the choices. In ideal cases the decision to keep the baby or not should be discussed by both parties, but in the end, like it or not the woman has the ultimate choice. If a father is unhappy about supporting a child he would rather have aborted, oh well. Again, if you don't want to pay, you shouldn't play. To me the morality of the issue is important but people will do what they want and their morals may not coincide with mine. So be it.

As far as the birth control issue, nobody is forcing the church to take birth control, and in the case of their employees, too bad. It is not the employer's business to dictate how an employee chooses to use their benefits. I feel the employer is overreaching their authority by objecting how the health care money is spent. A slippery slope indeed. The idea that the church is contributing to the sin by paying for a health care plan that pays for birth control is ludicrous. Obviously you can carry that logic into the person's entire life. You work for an organization owned by the Mormon church. You spend your paycheck on beer, coffee and coke. Does that mean the church will tell you you can't spend your salary on these things? Please don't tell me your salary is different than your benefits because benefits are often given in lieu of salary for tax purposes, etc. In the scope of this discussion, IMO, salary and benefits are the same thing.

klezman wrote:My social vision is that people can get the kind of health care they want/need without interference from anybody. Let the government run it, or let health insurance companies run it, or let people choose freely among any plan they can find...I don't particularly care. But my employer has no right to dictate the kind of health insurance I get simply because of their religion. They pay my wages, they don't own my life or soul.

PS Port *may* be making me punchy...

My feelings exactly!

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Edit: From an article on CNN about taxing health care premiums paid by the employer:

"The "health care exclusion" applies to the money a company contributes to help pay for an employee's coverage; that money is considered income to the worker, and the IRS treats it as tax-free."

So it is not a "benefit", it is part of income.

klezman wrote:My social vision is that people can get the kind of health care they want/need without interference from anybody. Let the government run it, or let health insurance companies run it, or let people choose freely among any plan they can find...I don't particularly care. But my employer has no right to dictate the kind of health insurance I get simply because of their religion. They pay my wages, they don't own my life or soul.

PS Port *may* be making me punchy...

For the love of his high waistedness, this!

I dont' give a promises what type of insurance is forced down our throats, I just want it applied evenly. That's all. Evenly.

Is the Catholic Church the only one against birth control? Because I haven't heard any other church groups complain about this.

And any business owned by a church is a business. I don't care if it's an extension, arm, whatever of the church. It's a business. They need to play by the rules all other businesses are forced to play by. Whether any business should be forced to play by ANY rules is another matter entirely.

I'm late to most of this discussion, having spent most of the weekend cutting up tree limbs, cleaning the yard, and hauling the debris to the dump. We were very fortunate (but, keep your fingers crossed for the Nor'easter coming later this week....) but it was still a mess. Our neighbor's parents in Bayhead, NJ, had water filling the first floor (and basement, natch) of their house, where conditions still totally suck and it will another 2 days before they can get in to secure their place enough to decamp to our neighbor's place. And, of course the Rockaways, parts of Brooklyn, Queens and much of the Jersey shore are still complete messes.

Anyway. I guess I'm a 90% consistent libertarian on these issues. I oppose government limits on health choices (though I think that at some not yet determined point fairly far along in a pregnancy abortion should no longer be a choice other than for real physical health reasons.), but I also oppose government telling employers what they must fund or government funding heal care with tax dollars.

All of the issues of religious freedom, etc. raised in our discussions are precisely the kinds of reasons politicians and thinkers advanced in the 18th and 19th (and even 1/2 half of the 20th) century in opposing government welfare and health programs.

I am truly unsympathetic to the claim that because it's a tough economy, you should have the right to dictate to your employer how it should provide health insurance coverage: which is to say your religious (or non-religious) beliefs trump the employers. Faugh! Each's convictions has equal moral weight and the state should not intervene. (Again, thanks to the federal government for creating this mess.)

I'm all for birth control being available, and inexpensively, as it now is and will remain. I'm not in favor of government funding or forced insurance funding. Similarly, I oppose government funding for abortion, especially since something close to a majority of the taxpayers oppose abortion (at least the extreme pro-choice position).

As far as that goes, if a private employer wishes to require employees to adhere to a particular behavioral code on or off the job, that should be the employer's choice. You don't like it, don't take the job. Or take the risk of being fired for cause (which means you're not eligible for unemployment benefits....)

As I have said, the best thing would be for employers to be out of the health care provision business (whether through insurance or otherwise, i.e. self-insurance) and for the government to be out of the business of health care provision.

Free people do not coerce other people to pay for their beliefs.

rpm wrote:Reason and sanity

First off, glad to know you came through relatively unscathed. I was concerned since we hadn't heard from you. I agree pretty much 100% with what you said. I would LOVE the government to just get the hell out of the health care game, but if they're going to force their way in, they need to apply whatever they're gonna do with an even hand, regardless of "religious principles."

I think about the only thing the Federal Government should do in regards to health care is open up coverage across state lines so you can truly shop around and if they're going to require it (not the end of the world in my opinion) only require catastrophic coverage with a high deductible that wouldn't cost all that much.

I think we agree that most of the problem with health insurance is that they've been forced to cover routine maintenance. It's like the warranty on my car, it's covered if something major goes wrong for X amount of time/mileage, but I'm on the hook for routine wear. Oil, brakes, tires, these things SHOULD NOT be the responsibility of the insurance company. At most, it would be nice if the insurance company negotiated a set rate for you, but you were 100% on the hook for your routine maintenance.

MarkDaSpark wrote:But you support your right to mess with others? Harlot!!


So much for the libertarians in the group, since I thought that the idea was to "keep" most gov't interference out of our lives. Yet each of you seem to think it's okay to enforce your social vision on others, but not let other's enforce their social vision on you.

And that was the point I have been trying to get across. That it is wrong in both instances (lady parts laws AND forcing one to provide BC). But all of you seem to think that it's okay to enforce your social vision on others when it doesn't match your GroupThink.


And by the way, Vasectomy IS considered as a Contraceptive by the Church, and would be a Sin.

Agreed, about vasectomies. I was just wondering why nobody harps on that all the time like they do birth control pills.

You are wrong about my intentions. Like I already said a few (hundred?) times, I can see how a mandate of any kind is anti-freedom in general. I simply don't agree that this particular mandate violates free exercise, any more than mandating prescription coverage for antibiotics (just an example) would violate it.

It sounds like you're saying that the mandate crushes religious freedom and I'm okay with that because I like birth control. That is not my position. My position is that it does not crush religious freedom in the first place. Clearly we disagree, but I'd like to be clear on exactly what it is we disagree about.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Yet you seem to only allow people you agree with to have those rights, and those that disagree, don't have any.

It's not "allowing" that's the issue. It's the being forced to "assist" with it that's the problem.

lol okay let's try this again. I fully support all of our rights to personal exercise of the religious delusions of our choice. When it comes to interacting with other people, it obviously gets a little more complicated. Still, in this case I do not see the "assistance" factor. Religious employer is not buying birth control for me. He is not "providing" birth control in any reasonable sense. He is paying me for work done and I do whatever the hell I want with that compensation. He does not get to tell me that I can't use my pay to purchase birth control, or alcohol, or bacon, or whatever else because that money originated with him. He does not get to insist that I take another job and use that money to buy sinful things so that his conscience is clear. Hell, a person would have to hide away in his home and never spend any money on anything in order to avoid indirect sponsoring of sinful behavior. It's just not reasonable.

rpm wrote: thoughts

I agree with most of that. However, I do not agree that my employer's and my moral codes have equal weight when it comes to my behavior. I believe you said employer has the right to dictate personal behavior on and off the clock, and I think there should be some limits on that. For example, I would not support an employer's right to insist his employees abstain from eating pork because it violates his moral code. I don't believe the employer has absolute power. That said, I accept a lot of limitations on personal behavior for the sake of my job, but they are limitations that are at least relevant to the job. Personal behaviors like bacon-eating or contraceptive use are much less likely to be relevant to anyone's job.

MarkDaSpark wrote:So much for the libertarians in the group, since I thought that the idea was to "keep" most gov't interference out of our lives. Yet each of you seem to think it's okay to enforce your social vision on others, but not let other's enforce their social vision on you.

For the record, BowTie and myself are the only two who are libertarian (with RPM (glad you're OK) being 90%). And for that same record, I don't want the gov't forcing private employers to do anything. All I'm trying to understand is how me taking BC affects you.

I say: how does me taking BC affect you?

You: It does if I have to give you the pills.

Me: You're not giving me the pills.

You: I'm paying part of the insurance that in turn provides the pills.

Me: *Confused.* So where does this argument stop? Would you go to a restaurant that provides employees insurance to BC? Would you use a drug from a pharm. company that does BC research? Aren't you, in both of those cases, circuitiously funding BC in the same way as you paying an insurance company who gives me the money for me to buy BC?

You: (Fill in the blank.)

I'm having a hard time understanding -- from a logical standpoint, not a political one -- how you offering me health insurance (not that you should be forced to!) is you sinning in the eyes of the Church.

chemvictim wrote:I agree with most of that. However, I do not agree that my employer's and my moral codes have equal weight when it comes to my behavior. I believe you said employer has the right to dictate personal behavior on and off the clock, and I think there should be some limits on that. For example, I would not support an employer's right to insist his employees abstain from eating pork because it violates his moral code. I don't believe the employer has absolute power. That said, I accept a lot of limitations on personal behavior for the sake of my job, but they are limitations that are at least relevant to the job. Personal behaviors like bacon-eating or contraceptive use are much less likely to be relevant to anyone's job.

I'll see your off-the-clock argument and raise you anything you want to do. Not that the gov't should control or mandate it, but I think that what I do on my personal time -- anything that I do on my personal time -- should have no influence on my job security as long as it doesn't negatively affect my ability to perform my job duties. Example: the teachers who have been fired from schools because they strip at night.

MarkDaSpark wrote:But you support your right to mess with others? Harlot!!


So much for the libertarians in the group, since I thought that the idea was to "keep" most gov't interference out of our lives. Yet each of you seem to think it's okay to enforce your social vision on others, but not let other's enforce their social vision on you.

And that was the point I have been trying to get across. That it is wrong in both instances (lady parts laws AND forcing one to provide BC). But all of you seem to think that it's okay to enforce your social vision on others when it doesn't match your GroupThink.


And by the way, Vasectomy IS considered as a Contraceptive by the Church, and would be a Sin.

This is just restating Kyle's point but I think making birth control available through insurance is different than saying the hospital has to perform abortions. It is not saying the birth control is available and thus everyone must take it or we'll feed them to the lions.

Both conservatives and liberals have been flexible in their views of birth control in its century of existence. I think it's naive to say a sin is a sin is a sin. Things that weren't sins yesterday might be today and might not be tomorrow.

joelsisk wrote:But you don't explain how the opposite circumstance works, MORALLY. I as the biological father want to keep the baby. The biological mother has 100% say, and so decides to abort. Or even the most dramatic situation where the women keeps the fetus, gives birth, and then abandons the child. I am honestly curious about your response to any of the many similar "gender reversed" situations.

"My body, my choice, [y]our financial responsibility" just doesn't work.

kylemittskus wrote:For the record, BowTie and myself are the only two who are libertarian (with RPM (glad you're OK) being 90%). And for that same record, I don't want the gov't forcing private employers to do anything. All I'm trying to understand is how me taking BC affects you.

I say: how does me taking BC affect you?

You: It doesn't if you buy it on your own, but if you force me to pay for it, then it is against my faith. (It does if I have to give you the pills.)

Me: You're not giving me the pills.

You: I'm paying for most ( part) of the insurance that in turn provides the pills. Coverage I didn't provide before, due to my religious beliefs.

Me: *Confused.* So where does this argument stop? Would you go to a restaurant that provides employees insurance to BC? Would you use a drug from a pharm. company that does BC research? Aren't you, in both of those cases, circuitiously funding BC in the same way as you paying an insurance company who gives me the money for me to buy BC?

You: Each of us has our own beliefs and faith. Am I forcing you to not use BC. No. Am I forcing you to become part of my religion? No. All I am saying is to respect my choice not to offer BC/Bacon in the HIP, as I respect your choice to use BC if you choose.

I'm having a hard time understanding -- from a logical standpoint, not a political one -- how you offering me health insurance (not that you should be forced to!) is you sinning in the eyes of the Church.

Because remember, religion isn't always logical, because it is based on FAITH. Faith in a power above.

As to sin, the Catholic Church used to teach (and still does I think), that one could sin 3 times for one sin. You thought about it, you said you would do it, and then you did it.

So is it any surprise that if I am forced to offer BC/Bacon to you, that I would consider it a violation of my personal, religious beliefs?


Put another way, do you buy VDDD wines? Because if you don't like VDDD, then you shouldn't buy the wines (like PS) because you are supporting it if you do buy them.

Now suppose Wine A is VDDD, but doesn't advertise it, Wine B isn't, and Wine C is and proudly advertises it.

You know that Wine C is VDDD, and so you don't buy it. But you like Wine A and B, and buy them both. Is it a "sin"? No, because the intent to commit the "sin" isn't there.


Again, this isn't about current companies that offer the coverage, this is about the gov't forcing companies to carry it.


And to reiterate again, since it seems no one pays attention.

You have your rights, and I have mine. My rights are not more important than yours, and yours are not more important than mine.

I don't have the right to enforce my beliefs on you, just as you don't have the right to enforce your beliefs on me.

However, as an Employer, I have the right as to what I offer my employees benefit-wise. If I choose not to offer something, then that is my right. It is not my right to tell you to never pay for it on your own.

You want it, you pay for it yourself.

bhodilee wrote:
I think about the only thing the Federal Government should do in regards to health care is open up coverage across state lines so you can truly shop around and if they're going to require it (not the end of the world in my opinion) only require catastrophic coverage with a high deductible that wouldn't cost all that much.

I think we agree that most of the problem with health insurance is that they've been forced to cover routine maintenance. It's like the warranty on my car, it's covered if something major goes wrong for X amount of time/mileage, but I'm on the hook for routine wear. Oil, brakes, tires, these things SHOULD NOT be the responsibility of the insurance company. At most, it would be nice if the insurance company negotiated a set rate for you, but you were 100% on the hook for your routine maintenance.

QFT

PetiteSirah wrote:"My body, my choice, [y]our financial responsibility" just doesn't work.

Agree.

kylemittskus wrote:For the record, BowTie and myself are the only two who are libertarian (with RPM (glad you're OK) being 90%).

AHEM?

kylemittskus wrote:I'll see your off-the-clock argument and raise you anything you want to do. Not that the gov't should control or mandate it, but I think that what I do on my personal time -- anything that I do on my personal time -- should have no influence on my job security as long as it doesn't negatively affect my ability to perform my job duties. Example: the teachers who have been fired from schools because they strip at night.

Celebrities have Morals clauses in their contracts. For example, Tiger Woods lost several endorsement deals when his outside behavior came to light. It wasn't on the golf course, but was private. Yet the companies are paying for his good image.

Shouldn't we have similar expectations for our teachers? We (taxpayers) are paying them to have an image in the classroom.


And really? You don't see the negative consequences of a teacher stripping? Because we never have any teachers "dating" their students.

Or a teacher being a serial killer or bank robber in their off time? That doesn't negatively affect their ability to perform their job duties. Does it?

MarkDaSpark wrote:However, as an Employer, I have the right as to what I offer my employees benefit-wise. If I choose not to offer something, then that is my right. It is not my right to tell you to never pay for it on your own.

You want it, you pay for it yourself.

None of my employers have ever bought contraception for me.

Let me pose a hypothetical, which might or might not be plausible. Let's say you are the religious employer and you provide some sort of health insurance as a benefit, and you pay half and I pay half. The insurance doesn't cover contraception because you think it's a sin. Fine. Now, if I want it to cover birth control, can I purchase a rider for the insurance plan, with my own money? I'd be using my own money, but it would be sort of attached to the plan which you also contribute to. Is that acceptable to you?

canonizer wrote:This is just restating Kyle's point but I think making birth control available through insurance is different than saying the hospital has to perform abortions. It is not saying the birth control is available and thus everyone must take it or we'll feed them to the lions.

Both conservatives and liberals have been flexible in their views of birth control in its century of existence. I think it's naive to say a sin is a sin is a sin. Things that weren't sins yesterday might be today and might not be tomorrow.

Go back and re-read. This isn't really about BC, but the gov't trying to force companies that don't provide it in their health coverage to provide it.

For the record, I'm not against BC (since I'm no longer RC), but I am against our gov't interfering based on a social agenda.


And what the Church considers a sin hasn't changed for over a thousand years. Violating the 10 Commandments are still considered a Mortal Sin.

And I think that while some of the lesser "sins" are no longer considered sins by some, they are still considered sins by the Church.

chemvictim wrote:None of my employers have ever bought contraception for me.

Let me pose a hypothetical, which might or might not be plausible. Let's say you are the religious employer and you provide some sort of health insurance as a benefit, and you pay half and I pay half. The insurance doesn't cover contraception because you think it's a sin. Fine. Now, if I want it to cover birth control, can I purchase a rider for the insurance plan, with my own money? I'd be using my own money, but it would be sort of attached to the plan which you also contribute to. Is that acceptable to you?

Duh! Of course it would be. But then again, I'm not really against BC in real life. I'm just against someone being forced to go against their beliefs.

I suspect it would be okay to the employer, since they aren't "contributing" to it, because what they pay for is strictly health related.

MarkDaSpark wrote:For the record, I'm not against BC (since I'm no longer RC), but I am against our gov't interfering based on a social agenda.

I think this particular one is a cost-saving agenda.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Celebrities have Morals clauses in their contracts. For example, Tiger Woods lost several endorsement deals when his outside behavior came to light. It wasn't on the golf course, but was private. Yet the companies are paying for his good image.

Shouldn't we have similar expectations for our teachers? We (taxpayers) are paying them to have an image in the classroom.


And really? You don't see the negative consequences of a teacher stripping? Because we never have any teachers "dating" their students.

Or a teacher being a serial killer or bank robber in their off time? That doesn't negatively affect their ability to perform their job duties. Does it?

Dude, two of these examples are clearly in violation of the law. Stripping is not. Though I am 100% with you on this one. Teachers shouldn't be strippers. I wouldn't really want my kid taught by a stripper.

PetiteSirah wrote:AHEM?

I was waiting for that, and I still laughed.

chemvictim wrote:I think this particular one is a cost-saving agenda.

Think again. Cost saving to whom?

bhodilee wrote:Dude, two of these examples are clearly in violation of the law. Stripping is not. Though I am 100% with you on this one. Teachers shouldn't be strippers. I wouldn't really want my kid taught by a stripper.

Look at Dexter!

But while in violation of the law, they still don't interfere with them teaching, does it? Because that was kyle's (your) statement.


Edit: "anything that I do on my personal time" was kyle's (your) exact words.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Duh! Of course it would be. But then again, I'm not really against BC in real life. I'm just against someone being forced to go against their beliefs.

I suspect it would be okay to the employer, since they aren't "contributing" to it, because what they pay for is strictly health related.

Now the thing is, I don't see any difference. You're still paying money in to an insurance company that pays for contraception. Your money is still touching the contraception money.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Go back and re-read. This isn't really about BC, but the gov't trying to force companies that don't provide it in their health coverage to provide it.

For the record, I'm not against BC (since I'm no longer RC), but I am against our gov't interfering based on a social agenda.


And what the Church considers a sin hasn't changed for over a thousand years. Violating the 10 Commandments are still considered a Mortal Sin.

And I think that while some of the lesser "sins" are no longer considered sins by some, they are still considered sins by the Church.

I think it's not only a social agenda but a fiscal one as well. Easy and free birth control to the working/nonworking poor only helps the nation as we won't be paying for these offspring (legitimate or otherwise) in the form of Medicaid/ABT/Welfare. From a legislative standpoint I think it makes perfect sense.

Plus it cuts down on abortion drastically, which is also a good thing. Put that promises in the drinking water! (birth control, not abortions)

There's a local morning show that loves to say if there was a reliable male birth control pill every single guy in America would take two just in case. Maybe that's what we need (and in fact there is a cancer drug in trial that makes the testes "forget" to produce sperm).