|
Post by duke on Aug 17, 2012 8:05:15 GMT -5
The reality of Romney's 'Obama War on Religion' Secular News Daily|Secular Coalition for America Governor Mitt Romney's most recent campaign ad focuses on one issue: President Obama and his relentless 'war on religion.' As a Mormon, Romney should be able to recognize such a 'war' when he sees one. From the Utah War to the prohibition of polygamy, Mormons have dealt with religious discrimination for many years. Can Obama's policies regarding religion really be called a 'war,' and thus be equated with other past and present instances of religious persecution? The answer is no. Of course, Mitt Romney is hardly the first person to accuse Barack Obama of attacking religious tradition in the United States. Texas Gov. Rick Perry ran a prominent ad during the Republican primary in which he promised to protect the country against 'liberal attacks on our religious heritage' and end Obama's 'war on religion.' There was also Newt Gingrich, who on the campaign trail accused both Obama and Romney for the 'attack on religion' allegedly brought on by their respective health care mandates. Gingrich's rhetoric echoes that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, [USCCB] which routinely uses words like 'war' and 'attack' with regards to religion, and have even compared the President's policies to those of Hitler and Stalin. While Romney began to use the term 'war on religion' in April, this new ad features the issue more prominently than we have seen before. At the heart of these recent accusations is healthcare reform. The announcer in Romney's ad states: 'President Obama used his health care plan to declare war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith. Mitt Romney believes that's wrong.' Presumably, Romney is referring to the fact that religiously-affiliated employers must include contraceptive coverage in the healthcare insurance packages they provide to employees. If there is a religious objection to doing so, the employees can obtain contraceptive coverage directly through the insurance company with no additional cost to the employer. The government has a responsibility to respect rights of conscience and to balance those rights with the general welfare of the citizenry. Rather than engage in a conversation about this balance, the knee-jerk reaction by the USCCB— and now Mitt Romney—is to cry that a war is being waged. <snip> www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012/08/the-reality-of-romneys-obama-war-on-religion/
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Aug 17, 2012 10:45:26 GMT -5
Wrong.
The job of the government is to follow the Constitutional Guidelines and leave religion alone.
There is no balancing act, no compromise, no bargain.
The Government is specifically precluded from interfering with the guarantees outlined in the 1st Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Aug 17, 2012 12:17:44 GMT -5
Sarge: I don't think you realize the full implications of what you posted. A strict interpretation would require the government to refrain from interfering with a parent's religious belief in faith healing to the detriment of their innocent children. Example is no surgery for appendicitis, result the child dies. Another example is, where parents refuse to allow blood transfusions for their innocent children for religious reasons. Result, the child dies. Another example is forcing female children to be married to a much older adult male, often to a man that is already married. A symptom of plural marriage religion. The courts have held, I believe correctly that wage and hour laws apply to religious institutions that are not churches or where the hired function is not primarily the promotion of the religion. Note: Corporations may be persons under the law but corporations cannot believe in a deity, they cannot go to hell for non-belief for they have no breath of life soul. Citizen United not withstanding. No-one has the right to impose on another individual the their own religious beliefs nor to invoke the power of the government in enslave another. That statement should apply to everyone including the captains of any corporation that seeks to force others to adhere to the dogma of the corporate chief. The government should have the right to defend the individual against such overbearing persons simply because they have attained the position of CEO. You are siding with corporations rather than individuals.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 17, 2012 12:43:42 GMT -5
individuals aren't forced to work for those companies. those CEO's can't force an employee to work for them. therefore, they cannot force individuals to adhere to any beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Aug 17, 2012 13:09:06 GMT -5
OK Wheels, Technically, you are correct. However tell your heartless opinion to a mother of 4 who has run out of unemployment benefits and maxed out credit cards, and lands a job at a Catholic Hospital only to discover she cannot get contraceptives to control her multiple monthly cycles that come 4 times a month rather than the usual once. The pay is too little to maintain the family and buy the contraceptives too. Most often she is required to deduct part of her meager pay just to get any medical coverage for the family. Better yet, maybe she could just die and leave the kids to be raised Catholic. Not everyone has a family with the financial resources to help another family member who quits a good job because he doesn't agree with the new labor union.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 17, 2012 15:26:40 GMT -5
OK Wheels, Technically, you are correct. However tell your heartless opinion to a mother of 4 who has run out of unemployment benefits and maxed out credit cards, and lands a job at a Catholic Hospital only to discover she cannot get contraceptives to control her multiple monthly cycles that come 4 times a month rather than the usual once. The pay is too little to maintain the family and buy the contraceptives too. Most often she is required to deduct part of her meager pay just to get any medical coverage for the family. Better yet, maybe she could just die and leave the kids to be raised Catholic. Not everyone has a family with the financial resources to help another family member who quits a good job because he doesn't agree with the new labor union. heartless? hardly. i just don't subscribe to the same dishonest rhetoric that you and many others on the left love to preach about. the woman in your made-up scenario will be able to get those contraceptives. why? b/c they are being used to treat a medical condition. i've shown you before that you are wrong about catholics not allowing contraceptives for medical use. yet here you are again, spreading the same dishonesty. it must be that bleeding heart you're sporting. i'll say again, the only way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction is to end employer-provided insurance. that should make you happy. employers aren't forced by the government to turn their back on their beliefs and no one gets to tell your endless list of hypothetical victims that they have to pay for their own contraceptives. it's a win-win, right?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Aug 17, 2012 15:36:48 GMT -5
Wheels you have posted a link to a publicity claim that women get contraceptives for medical conditions other than birth control. In turn I posted testimony before congress that the real life actions do not necessarily follow the noble claims. The administration of the health policies are not following what the church claims. It is the reality that people have to deal with, not some publicity propaganda. added: Remember that the Catholic church claimed for centuries that it did not have any problems with their clergy as related to children too. That has been proven to be pure BS. Just because it is a church making a self-serving claim, does not make the claim to be true.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Aug 18, 2012 0:21:32 GMT -5
Actually no.
I'm siding with the Constitution. I'm funny like that.
Might I suggest you consider reading the 1st Amendment. It would clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Aug 18, 2012 9:29:49 GMT -5
Actually no. [Typical Republican answer. No to What? Everything, just because what is posted did not praise your post? ] I'm siding with the Constitution. I'm funny like that. [Good. We seem to differ on what constitutes Government interference in the practice of religion. The Corporate churches are appealing to government to accept the views of the corporate leader, an individual who wants to impose the corporate views on others irrespective of the fact that the challenged activity is profitable enterprise.] Might I suggest you consider reading the 1st Amendment. It would clear up a lot of your misconceptions. I've read that document many times. That is precisely why I side with the individual rather than a corporate entity.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Aug 18, 2012 9:43:57 GMT -5
Here is a direct quote from a recent case that discusses how the court approach controversies between church members and or the members or employees and a corporate church. "We turn first to the Diocese's assertion that the courts lack jurisdiction over this matter under the ministerial exception. The courts have long held that, under the First Amendment, the courts may not interfere with matters of government, faith or doctrine of religious institutions. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, 132 S.Ct. 694, 704 (2012). Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the courts will not interfere with claims alleging improper conduct by religious institutions when the conduct is "rooted in religious belief." Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, --- S.W.3d ----, 2012 WL 604481, at *9 (Tenn. Feb. 27, 2012) (quoting Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colo., 289 F.3d 648, 657 (10th Cir.2002)). However, the courts may adjudicate matters that involve religious institutions when "the court can resolve the dispute by applying neutral legal principles and is not required to employ or rely on religious doctrine to adjudicate the matter." Id. (citing see Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602--07 (1979); New York Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. Fisher, 182 Conn. 272, 438 A.2d 62, 68 (Conn. 1980) (holding that " t is now well established that state judicial intervention is justified when it can be accomplished by resort to neutral principles of law . . . that eschew consideration of doctrinal matters such as the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith."); McKelvey v. Pierce, 800 A.2d 840, 856 (N.J. 2002) (holding that the First Amendment does not apply if "the dispute can be resolved by the application of purely neutral principles of law and without impermissible government intrusion (e.g., where the church offers no religious-based justification for its actions and points to no internal governance rights that would actually be affected)"; Lacy v. Bassett, 132 S.W.3d 119, 123 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004) (noting that "a state may adopt an approach, including neutral principles of law, for resolving church disputes that do not involve consideration of doctrinal matters")). Under this "neutral legal principles approach . . . the courts . . . 'give no greater or lesser deference to tortious conduct committed on third parties by religious organizations than we do to tortious conduct committed on third parties by non-religious entities.'" Id. at *10 (quoting Malicki v. Doe, 814 So.2d 347, 361 (Fla. 2002)). The "danger" that "the State will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrinal beliefs" is not "applicable to purely secular disputes between third parties and a particular defendant, albeit a religious affiliated organization, in which fraud, breach of contract, and statutory violations are alleged." Id. (quoting Gen. Council on Fin. and Admin. of United Methodist Church v. Superior Ct. of Cal., San Diego Cnty., 439 U.S. 1355, 1372--73, 99 S.Ct. 35, 58 L.Ed.2d 63 (1978) (citation omitted); see also Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So.2d 1213, 1236 (Miss. 2005) (stating that "[w]e read Watson [v. Jones] to hold only that civil courts may not take jurisdiction over a religious organization's internal, ecclesiastical matters")).
[31] "The relationship between an organized church and its ministers is its lifeblood." McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553, 558 (5th Cir.1972). Neither the legislatures nor the judiciary may interfere with the regulation of church administration or operation, or matters concerning the appointment of clergy. Kreshick v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190, 191, 80 S.Ct. 1037, 4 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1960); Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 107--108, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952). The "ministerial exception" evolved in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other legislation that prohibit discrimination in the employment context. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, 132 S.Ct. 694, 705 (2012). The exception "precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers." Id. (footnote omitted). Employment discrimination laws may not be used, for example, to compel the Catholic Church or an Orthodox Jewish seminary to ordain women. Id. at 706. The ministerial exception is not limited to a religious institution's decision to discharge a minister for a religious reason. Id. at 709. Rather, it "ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful - a matter 'strictly ecclesiastical' . . . - is the church's alone." Id. (quoting Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 119, 73 S.Ct. 143).
[32] In Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court concurred with the Courts of Appeal that the ministerial exception "is not limited to the head of a religious congregation[,]" but extended to other employees that "qualif[y] as a minister." Id. at 707. The Court held that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff in Hosanna-Tabor, a "called teacher" who fulfilled academic study requirements, passed an oral examination by faculty at a Lutheran college, was accorded the title "Minster of Religion, Commissioned," and was held out as a minister by the Church, qualified as a minister for the purpose of the exception. Id. The Hosanna-Tabor Court held that the ministerial exception barred the plaintiff's suit alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990), and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, codified at Mich. Comp. Law § 37.1602(a)(1979). Id. at 710.
[33] The Supreme Court specifically declined to opine, however, on whether the ministerial exception would bar other types of actions, including claims by employees asserting breach of contract or tortious conduct by religious employers. Id. The ministerial exception recognized by the Hosanna-Tabor Court, therefore, was narrowly limited to claims asserted by ministers, or employees who qualify as ministers, asserting violations of statutes prohibiting discrimination in the work place. The Tennessee Supreme Court, furthermore, has observed that, with respect to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, application of the doctrine to matters not rooted in religious belief "runs the risk of placing religious institutions in a preferred position, Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir.1998), and favoring religious institutions over secular institutions could give rise to Establishment Clause concerns." (See Zanita E. Fenton, Faith in Justice: Fiduciaries, Malpractice & Sexual Abuse by Clergy, 8 Mich. J. Gender & L. 45, 75 (2001) (noting that "non-application of tort principles where they might otherwise apply may be more like Establishment, creating an exception for religion")). Carol Petschonek v. the Catholic Diocese of Memphis, et al., No. W2011-02216-COA-R9-CV (Tenn.App. 05/23/2012) www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/petschonekcon.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Aug 18, 2012 10:53:31 GMT -5
Sorry… let me make it more clear.
NO…
To all the junk you posted regarding siding with corporations and in general being against the common man.
NO… in general to your premise and 'insight' of my beliefs.
And a new NO, to you stating you have read the 1st Amendment. You are arguing AGAINST it… not for it.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 20, 2012 10:45:29 GMT -5
Wheels you have posted a link to a publicity claim that women get contraceptives for medical conditions other than birth control. In turn I posted testimony before congress that the real life actions do not necessarily follow the noble claims. even sandra fluke agrees that insurance policies provided by catholic organizations cover contraceptives for medical conditions. someone at the insurance company denied her friend's claim. you want that guy fired? go for it. he failed at his job. but to imply that the catholic church doesn't cover such scenarios is a lie.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Aug 20, 2012 13:18:05 GMT -5
Bear in mind that many of the larger institutions are self-insured and do not pay premiums but rather pay a fee for administrative services by some insurance company in the administration of 'the plan'. Refusing to cover such items can and likely is at the behest of the self-insured. Proof? So far a lawsuit has not surfaced. For proof, a legal discovery process would have to be in place to pry loose the deeply concealed information. For a lawsuit to be initiated, the injured would have to have the resources to entice an attorney to file. If the plaintiff cannot afford contraceptives, what chance is there for resources to initiate a lawsuit? Of course you expect me to find the support for your claims that Fluke agrees that insurance policies provided by catholic organizations cover contraceptives for medical conditions.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 20, 2012 16:18:11 GMT -5
Bear in mind that many of the larger institutions are self-insured and do not pay premiums but rather pay a fee for administrative services by some insurance company in the administration of 'the plan'. Refusing to cover such items can and likely is at the behest of the self-insured. Proof? So far a lawsuit has not surfaced. For proof, a legal discovery process would have to be in place to pry loose the deeply concealed information. For a lawsuit to be initiated, the injured would have to have the resources to entice an attorney to file. If the plaintiff cannot afford contraceptives, what chance is there for resources to initiate a lawsuit? in other words, there is no proof to support your implications. Of course you expect me to find the support for your claims that Fluke agrees that insurance policies provided by catholic organizations cover contraceptives for medical conditions. you've got to be kidding me. as someone who references the fluke testimony incessantly, you should know that she was the one who said that her friend's contraceptives were supposed to be covered by the university insurance plan. we've already discussed this. you still need some sort of proof? tell you what... since you can't be bothered to go back and read a discussion we've already had, here ya go. the link is below. see reply #36. fredoland.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=12259&page=2here's a link to her testimony, since you apparently haven't read it. abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf
|
|