U.S. 2012 Election

[cupper]

You all realize that the Federal regulations are less restrictive than most of the 27 states that have regulations requiring birth control to be covered. In those states no allowance is made for religious objections. Period.

So for the GOP to pick this fight just lends more evidence that they have no concept of what the American public is really concerned about.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And yet, the White House seems to have backed down.  why?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Judging by American - rather than Canadian - media and reported opinion, the people opposed to the government see this as a question of religious (freedom of thought/belief) rights and the people in favour of the government see this as an issue of the particulars (contraception, abortion).  The former are correct and hold the constitutional high ground; that is why the latter are going to lose.  There is a distinction - and it doesn't take an exceptionally penetrating mind to make it - between defending the right of the church to its doctrine, and taking issue with various points of doctrine (are they sensible, reasonable, just, etc).  It is of a piece with defending the right of a person to hold an opinion, without necessarily agreeing with that opinion or even finding it thoroughly distasteful or immoral.

Christianity in general is a religion full of people who understand and parrot the doctrine of their churches without necessarily being virtuous practitioners.  They will defend the right of the church to hold and teach its principles while not necessarily themselves abiding by all of those principles.  And the people who are not Catholics can easily enough see that it could be their favoured organization or church in the crosshairs.  The government will lose.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So for the GOP to pick this fight just lends more evidence that they have no concept of what the American public is really concerned about.

It shows they understand their constitution, and the difference between federal rights and states' rights.  From the start it has been entirely uncontroversial that states might establish churches, or establish laws favouring or disfavouring them.

 

[cupper]

And yet, the White House seems to have backed down.  why?

Not so much backed down, as found a way to spin it so it is more palatable.

Religious organizations will still pay for it, just not explicitly. Because we all know that the insurance companies are so generous and will fall over themselves to cover the cost of contraception and not try to recoup the costs by raising premiums. :

 

[Infanteer]

Funny how many Republicans seem focused on the religious credentials and 'piety' of their potential leader and are engaged by a debate between a philandering Catholic and a Mormon about who is more pious for a largely Presbyterian/Baptist/Congregationalist audience.  Meanwhile, the guy they vehemently oppose seems to fit the bill as a devout Protestant without any real hint of personal controversy in his past.

If President Obama were a member of the Republican Party and running in this current race, he'd probably be a shoo-in over Romney and Gingrich.  Odd thing, politics is.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The reason it seems so silly is that I can't really figure out, other than some bishops, who really has an issue with this. Numerous Catholic universities and hospitals have been including contraceptives in their health plans for years. Something like 98% of sexually active Americans use some form of contraception, suggesting that most American Catholics also ignore church doctrine on the matter. Most of them seem to have no issue with the law/order in question. The point is simple: why should the religious bent of an employer be allowed to determine the health choices of its employees? Granted, I don't know why someone who wasn't Catholic would work for them, but obviously it does happen. This isn't an individual freedom issue as far as I can tell, unless you really, really stretch it. And that seems to be how most Americans are looking at it, no matter how desperately the GOP is trying to reframe it.

Obama forcing people to pay for religious schools and hospitals would be rather simply dealt with by the Establishment Clause of Constitution of the United States of America. Google it if you're not familiar with it.

What I find particularly rich, especially for the vehemently antichoice conservative set in the US, is that improving access to contraception would actually reduce demand for abortion, whereas making it harder to obtain such services and products increases the demand. So I'm finding it hard to see where they're coming from, and it seems to be more about control of women than anything else. That's nothing new, though.

My brilliant, much more polemic friend Ian Boudreau offers some better ones, first some humourous ones.

Employers shouldn't be required to violate their religious beliefs by providing coverage for contraception, or serving black people.

Employers shouldn't be required to violate their religious beliefs by being forced to allow menstruating women in their places of business.

You must respect the religious beliefs of your employer, whatever those might be. This may involve wearing a special hat.

Employers shouldn't have to violate their religious beliefs by being forced to pay employees who might use their wages for alcohol or ham.

He actually goes into the whole thing a lot more deeply here: http://www.angryblacklady.com/2012/02/05/more-thoughts-on-catholicism-and-contraception/#more-67359 - specifically tackling the special pleading that it takes to actually make an issue of this. It's well written (as is most of his stuff) and worth the time.

This was perhaps the most insulting, debasing, and overall worthless collection of drivel I have ever read, and I had to take philosophy for a year.

As Technoviking said- you're a bigot.  The examples you put here are so lacking in value that it truly boggles my mind.... forcing catholic institutions, run by catholics and paid by catholics to pay for birth control when it violates their beliefs would go against the free exercise clause (and I didn't even have to google that!), and since it is not overall harmful to society, therin not requiring the compelling interest doctrine to kick in, there is no requirement to force this on those institutions.

If you or any other atheist were forced to pay for a religious activity you'd be crying foul in the streets...

Also, not every conservative is anti-choice.  Same as not every liberal is anti-death sentence.  Your arrogant attitude towards conservative views and the GOP smack of bigotry.

Finally, you aren't an atheist... your a new born obamist.  The religion of $900 billion dollar deficits, dithering, and over-alll poor leadership abilities. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

op:

 

[cupper]

But it also comes down to: do the rights of the organization / group trump those of the individual.

The states have placed the right of the individual above the organization by stating that religious organizations and institutions that employ persons that do not follow the same beliefs must still provide services that would be available to anyone else regardless of teh employers beliefs.

 

[ballz]

If you or any other atheist were forced to pay for a religious activity you'd be crying foul in the streets...

Athiests are forced to pay for religious activity, by having donations to religious institutions tax-deductible and by not making for-profit organizations (yes, that's right, I said it) pay taxes, but there is little noise if any about that. If anyone wants to debate that, you can PM me.

In any case, this whole debate has only one answer... Battle Royale... no I'm kidding... but really, a simple solution, if the Federal government just provided contraception and/or abortions, it would solve this whole damn fiasco.

I don't think it's a good idea to try and force organizations to provide anything for their employees that contradicts or conflicts with that organization's values / mission statement.

On another note, it blows my mind that anyone can think birth control or condoms are somehow immoral.

 

[Infanteer]

Ok.  Stop with the name calling.  Let's drop the religious chatter and insinuations before I start locking threads/issuing warnings.

The Staff.

 

[Redeye]

I respect your right to be an atheist or whatever your beliefs are; I don't understand it or agree with it but I tolerate it and don't mock you for your non belief.

I'll never understand people who still believe either, but all else equal, I'll defend your right to, regardless of what you may believe so long as it doesn't wind up institutionalizing any form of discrimination. I have friends of every major religion I've spent as much time as possible trying to understand. I may loathe the concept when I see the harm it causes but neither I nor anyone else can force anyone to give it up. But it's great to get people to ask questions. That's it, that's all.

Your blind belief in President Obama defies all logic to me.

What "blind belief"? When Obama emerge on the national political scene in the US at the DNC in 2004 he made an amazing speech that caught a lot of attention because he spoke like few others, he sounded like he had ideas no one has really expressed before. He won the Dem nomination in 2008 deservedly, and I liked him. I was pleased to see him win, and more to see that he seemed to get more people engaged in politics. To make that happen in the USA is an accomplishment.

He took a job I doubt most people would want. He inherited a country embroiled in two wars, with an economy in shambles, and no easy answers. He couldn't really do much in the first couple of years without a lot of horse trading, and because of that it seemed like a lot of people disengaged in the 2010 midterms, delivering the most disapproved of Congress according to polls in recent history. In the face of the complete legislative paralysis, he still managed to get some things done, though he comes under fire from those in his party who expected him to be some kind of messianic figure, which is of course ridiculous.

Do I "blindly believe" in him? Not even a little. A decent, moderate conservative who didn't pander to the social conservative faction would catch my attention. I thought in 2008 he was the best man for the job. Based on what I've seen for 2012, he still is. But it's not blind anything. Ultimately I'm a pragmatist, I will bet on the best option available but I've not as long as I've been able to wrap my head around politics seen anything I'd blindly believe in. In Canada or the USA. Give me a social liberal candidate with a reasonable fiscal plan and and ability to present a vision beyond one election cycle, and maybe I'll get close to blind belief, but that is unlikely to ever happen on either side of the border. Our politics are too broken to allow for it. 

 

[cupper]

Yes, it is great that Obama and his crew seem to believe that they dont have to respect the constitution and religious rights.  Hilarious.  Awesome. 

The original point is as Technoviking stated- they shouldn't have to pay for that which they dont believe.  If they dont want abortions or to pay for them, or birth control, who cares? As a citizen that's their right.

So I guess the GOP arguing for individual rights, in your mind, is not great. 

Now, if this were the opposite, and it was that Obama was forcing everyone to pay for religious schools and hospitals, I assume you would be against it, since you apparently have a blinding hatred towards religion

The problem with your argument is this: The GOP is not arguing for individual rights. They are arguing for the rights of an organized group of people over the rights of the individual.

 

[cupper]

>So for the GOP to pick this fight just lends more evidence that they have no concept of what the American public is really concerned about.

It shows they understand their constitution, and the difference between federal rights and states' rights.  From the start it has been entirely uncontroversial that states might establish churches, or establish laws favouring or disfavouring them.

Unfortunately, The Supreme Court has upheld that the Establishment Clause can be extended to the States as well based on the 14th Amendment.

 

[vonGarvin]

On another note, it blows my mind that anyone can think birth control or condoms are somehow immoral.

That may be the case, but it's irrelevant what you think about the morality of contraceptives and their use.

To illustrate, allow me to go back to the pork analogy.  I love bacon.  I eat it every day.  I cannot fathom how anyone could see that as immoral.  Yet it would be immoral for me to force a jew or a muslim to have anything to do with the production of bacon.  That's the point.

Anyway, Obama 54%, Romney 43%, "other" 3% (write ins, spoiled ballots, etc).  Four more years.  I'm calling it now.

 

[cupper]

Judging by American - rather than Canadian - media and reported opinion, the people opposed to the government see this as a question of religious (freedom of thought/belief) rights

No, they see it as separation of church and state, in that the state is interfering with the doctrines of the church. It's only being couched as an argument of freedom of conscience

and the people in favour of the government see this as an issue of the particulars (contraception, abortion).

Again, no. They view it as an issue of rights of the individual vs the rights of an organization

The former are correct and hold the constitutional high ground; that is why the latter are going to lose. 

Don't be so sure. State mandates have been upheld as constitutional, so there is no reason that the Federal mandate would not be upheld as well. It does not interfere with the practice of a religion, thus it passes the Lemon test established by the Supreme Court regarding the Establishment Clause, and the Freedom Clause

 

[cupper]

When Obama emerge on the national political scene in the US at the DNC in 2004 he made an amazing speech that caught a lot of attention because he spoke like few others, he sounded like he had ideas no one has really expressed before. He won the Dem nomination in 2008 deservedly, and I liked him. I was pleased to see him win, and more to see that he seemed to get more people engaged in politics. To make that happen in the USA is an accomplishment.

Not so much an accomplishment as influence by party insiders who pushed their chosen candidate.

Many Dems felt that Obama was the future of the Party, but not for the 2008 nomination. They felt that he needed to spend time on the national scene, run out his Senate term then either run as the second on the ticket of the incumbent, or seek the nomination when the second term of the incumbent ran out.

 

[cupper]

All of this discussion is moot anyway, as was pointed out earlier, Obama caved, backtracked, flip flopped, tweaked, spun, or whatever term you want to use.

But going back a moment, this was never about religious freedom anyway for the GOP. It was about fighting against "Obamacare", and co=opting using religious freedom as an argument for dismantling a policy they have vowed will not survive past January 2013.

 

[ballz]

That may be the case, but it's irrelevant what you think about the morality of contraceptives and their use.

To illustrate, allow me to go back to the pork analogy.  I love bacon.  I eat it every day.  I cannot fathom how anyone could see that as immoral.  Yet it would be immoral for me to force a jew or a muslim to have anything to do with the production of bacon.  That's the point.

Anyway, Obama 54%, Romney 43%, "other" 3% (write ins, spoiled ballots, etc).  Four more years.  I'm calling it now.

We're sidetracked, but two comments:

1. I don't need a "forcing bacon on a Muslim" example, and frankly I don't know what to think of the fact that you consider me that dense that I needed that example . I am aware that I can't force my beliefs on morality on someone else. I am not preaching to anyone to wear a condom (I don't give a flying curse word if they choose not to wrap it up) or asking for a law to be passed that requires someone to wear one or to make them take a job at a condom factory.

All I said was it blows my mind that people can think it's immoral. Abortion I can understand, even if I don't agree, I can see where they are coming from (where does life begin? etc). Condoms, birth control, the like... I don't even understand the argument or where it comes from.

2. Rick Santorum has said that the state should have the right to ban birth control and sodomy. A more fitting example to the issue would be a Muslim trying to stop you from eating bacon. Don't tell me you wouldn't be pissed off.

That may be the case, but it's irrelevant what you think about the morality of contraceptives and their use.

And it should be equally irrelevant what Rick Santorum thinks about contraceptives and their use. It's not, unfortunately.

 

[cupper]

Another problem with the issue there is no allowance made for the coverage of prescriptions for hormonal birth control for non-contraceptive use.