Originally posted by Merge:
In 2002, New York passed the women’s health and Wellness act [ed: WHWA] which was challenged by the Catholic Charities of Albany. Their complaint was rejected by all three levels of New York state courts. That court ruled on the basis of a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which barred most religion-based exemptions from laws that are neutral, generally applicable and that do not single out religion for special burdens.
That is why I do not care for your constitutional argument. The precedent has been established.
Again, Merge, this is the kind of thoughtful, detailed post that all must appreciate.
That said, may I point out some areas of logic and fact that IMHO make a difference.
(1) The WHWA is a NY State law not a Federal law. There is a difference between the US Supreme Court (USSC) and the state’s highest court NY Court of Appeals (NYCA). Each has both different black-letter law and different case law on which to abjudicate.
(2) Enacted in 2002, the WHWA requires employers who provide their employees with a group insurance policy that includes prescription drug coverage to include prescription contraceptives as part of that coverage. The law also contains an exemption for organizations that both primarily employ and
serve members of their own faith. Nowhere, however, are employers required to offer prescription drug coverage.
(3) The USSC did not uphold the WHWA, it merely chose not to review it in 2007. The USSC set its docket that year by discerning among what its clerks feel are the most noteworthy of 1,000s of petitions. The USSC does not state a reason why any petition is not accepted. Their selection is based on many factors including things such as petitions on State laws vs Federal laws, the arguments petitioners present, and many others.
(4) IMHO some key facts for the non-acceptance of the WHWA petition might be (a) that this was a state law vetted by that state’s courts and (b) the petitioner’s argument was based not only on free ‘‘exercise’’ of religion but also on free ‘‘speech’’. At the NY State level, the NYCA denied petition based, as you pointed out, on the USSC ‘‘1990 decision in
Employment Division v. Smith, in which a
five-justice majority concluded that two Native Americans could be denied unemployment insurance when they were fired after using peyote as part of a religious ceremony, the
NY Court of Appeals reasoned that the Free ‘‘Exercise’’ Clause does not provide any protection against laws that run counter to church doctrine so long as “they apply neutrally to non-religious entities as well as religious ones.”
And the NY Court of Appeals similarly rejected petitioners’ free speech claims, citing the Supreme Court’s decision, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), which held that a federal law that effectively required law schools to host military recruiters on campus did not violate the schools’ freedom of speech. Just as the military recruiters on campus did not prevent law schools from communicating any message they liked, the Court of Appeals reasoned, so too an insurance mandate also does not stop the churches from communicating that which they choose.’’
I, myself, might have rejected petitioners based on the latter! I also highlight that the Smith majority of 5 was paper thin and thus IMHO is perhaps very vulnerable to reversal if there were to be even a small change in the relevant facts.
First, The NY law did not REQUIRE the institutions to issue health insurance to their employees; the Obama law does so REQUIRE it.
Second, the Smith case involved the Indians’ active use of a substance, peyote, which had been legally prohibited. As I discussed above, I do feel the government has certain Constitutional rights to ban dangerous actions and/or substances which some religions might prefer to perform/use. However, I strongly affirm that---- as well as believe there is historical precedent for ----no government should have the power to force anyone to commit an ACT against his conscience (as opposed to refrain from a prohibited action he might prefer to do but which is against the law). HUGE difference!
Third, the free speech argument IMHO was silly and diverting and unnecessary.
Therefore, IMHO legally the USSC is very likely to review a FEDERAL law that REQUIRES an action--- not an avoidance of one ----by a person AGAINST his conscience violating not only his Constitutionally assured freedom of the PRACTICE of his/her religion but also because it would be trying to ESTABLISH a religious norm. The USSC precedent for the right of association I cited above gives the USSC the appropriate Constitutional latitude under Smith to deal with the topic without prejudice by making such insurance optional if paid by the users who seek it.
In addition to these legal arguments is the factual difference that the Obama law deals not only with contraception but also with the more universally opposed sterilization and abortion.
Originally posted by Merge:
Regarding the moral authority, anyone can murder someone. Only women can get pregnant, and I do not think an organization that (in my opinion) already treats women as a lesser class, should be the ones deciding that morality.
I know this will sound arcane to you but IMHO and that of the Church it is not men or women but God in the Holy Spirit who sets Church rules of morals and ethics.
That said, from a strictly logical extension of your argument of sexual empathy as a prerequisite, all male judges in all courts would have to recuse themselves on any question of pregnancy or its termination. If male bishops are biologically unfit to opine on the morality of a pregnancy question then why would male justices not also be?
Finally on what basis do you conclude that the Catholic Church is an ‘‘organization that (in my opinion) already treats women as a lesser class’’? As far as I recollect the only
specific issue raised on this topic is whether women can be priests. Two points on that: (1) the Catholic position with which I will not argue is that the Church has no power to change what Jesus determined, even if they thought it were right. (2) In the strict Catholic interpretation of Christ’s ‘‘job description’’ for being a priest, one must be a servant of the people, not a lord; one must serve all others, placing himself last. In that sense being a priest might be considered a demotion in pragmatic terms.
Originally posted by Merge:
According to this article, 98% of Catholic women have used some type of birth control
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/catholics-support-contraception-mandate_n_1261046.html..... Huffington post was citing surveys. You may not like the site, that doesn't mean it is wrong. Normally when someone disagrees with a citation, they provide an alternative... and not just attack the one provided with nothing to back it up.
Six points on this:
(1) Huffington is IMHO less than credible, but the poll, itself, is by the Public Religion Research Institute, which is totally unknown to me, so I cannot speak to its credibility. IMHO the bias of a polling group is appropriate for challenge without the need for a countervailing survey;
(2) It has been demonstrated that the results of a poll can be significantly skewed by biased wording in the questions asked.
(3) As Mark Twain said, ‘‘there are liars, damned liars and statisticians’’. Based on by own biased sample I cannot believe the accuracy of 98%. Majority? Perhaps, and even that might seem to support your point. HOWEVER a vote of Catholic laity is irrelevant to my point.
(4) Right and wrong (Faith and Morals) are not determined by the caprice of street pollsters’ respondents.
(5) The only person of relevance is a conscientiously objecting person who to being forced to do an act that violates his religious principles. In almost every case, it is those in the minority which the US Constitution seeks to protect against unreasonable requirements of the majority.
(6) The poll says nothing about sterilization or abortion.
In sum, if the ‘rightly formed’ consciences of the 98% purported to use contraception are not being forced or if the ‘rightly formed’ consciences of the millions who favor killing fetuses in the womb are not either, those are ‘facts’ that will be of little value to the specific church officials who do object thereto and who are now being forced by Obama to do so at the time when these individuals must face their Maker based on their own consciences.
Originally posted by Merge:
This article also has a nun who shares my beliefs.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/bishop_lennon_condemns_new_con.html
"Sister Christine Schenk, a local nun and certified nurse midwife, says the bishops are being disingenuous because the new rule does not force anyone to use contraception….No Catholic is being coerced into using birth control," she said.
"On the books, church teachings say that birth control is not allowed," said Schenk. "But the vast majority of Catholics have not accepted the church's teaching on contraception.
"So, you have to ask yourself," she added, "'Who are the bishops speaking for?' It sounds like they're speaking for themselves rather than the Catholic people."
Sister Christine Schenk suffers the same sloppy thinking addressed above. It is not the self-styled Catholics who are being asked to violate their conscience. The law does address forcing people to supply not only contraceptive drugs but also abortion or sterilization. That conscience of the users is legally irrelevant. The question is should the Church be forced to supply them against its conscience and religious principles.
Originally posted by Merge:
I will clarify a few things.
I am 33 years old. …. Your characterization of me as a gen y, “if it feels good, do it”[,] is garbage.
At 33 you were born in 1979, putting you high in the third quartile of Gen-X (1965-1985). I never intended to say that you were selfish or unprincipled. What I intended to communicate was that based on the way your terse and somewhat illogical response sounded earlier, I merely suggested such would be less surprising if you were to have been raised as many Gen-Y-ers seem to have been raised: selfish and undisciplined.
Originally posted by Merge:
When I was 13 I started challenging my religious upbringing and beliefs. I wanted something more service oriented where I could help people rather than sitting in a Church to be my form of worship. I joined a Methodist church where they had an active youth group and many service opportunities which I participated in, and started to run as a youth leader into my 20's. I have been a participant in many religious weekend/weeklong retreats and outreach projects as well.
This is a very personal statement, and I appreciate your candor. I would never challenge anyone’s right to make his or her own choices. That said, I know a lot of teenagers who seek to challenge many things---most of which are filtered through an understanding of logic and life that is less experienced, less informed and more highly-charged hormonally. I am not saying this is true in your case, but only that there is a higher propensity at that age. You do sound to me as if you were much more mature than most, because your alternatives seem very lofty to me, indeed, and not selfish at all. That said, the logical traps I suggested earlier might have contributed.
Catholic liturgy, itself, is primarily worship and communion. Liturgy and practice are integrated but independent. Liturgy, worship and communion are each essential in its respective right, and should not be overshadowed by enjoyment of a singing group or youth activities. Christian practice is also essential, and it seems this might be what you were missing (''When you did it for these, the least of my Brethren, you did it for Me''). At the age of 13 it might have been too much to expect, but why not ask the Church for help to start a youth service organization in your parish? Why throw the baby out with the bath water, as Luther did on a much more scandalous scale?
The everyday practices of Catholic laity and clergy often end up far from Jesus instructions, that to be ‘‘perfect’’ we must sell all we have, give to the poor and come follow Him. Mark Twain further opined that any preacher with more than one coat is a hypocrite. Hypocrite? No, but almost all of us fall far short of perfect. Thankfully, Jesus goes on to assure us that we, too, can pass through the eye of the needle and get to heaven if we follow the Commandments and do as the priests instruct (not as they do). Jesus further assures us that the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) will guide the Apostolic successors in TRUTH until the end of the age. This applies to Faith and Morals, not personal conduct or politics.
Many struggle to distinguish pleasures from joys or happiness. I have my own theories, but for now suffice it to say that one can only be happy by loving, by doing for others. The opposite of love is not hate but selfishness. Bishop Sheen said that a selfish person can never be happy.
The primary point is that it is illogical to go from the specific to the universal. Never judge a church by its bad apples.
Originally posted by Merge:
I have dedicated a tremendous amount of my time and energy for causes that did not feel good to me, but felt right. I haven’t lead a perfect life by any means, but I am comfortable saying that I have lived more closely with what God wants from people than many members of the churches I was involved with.
For all this I thank God and sing your praise! Truly!
But don’t you agree it would be wrong if you tried to force another to follow your example?
Originally posted by Merge:
I have had many personal issues with the teachings of certain Churches as well as some individuals associated with them. I have shared my opinions and beliefs with Priests, Pastors, friends and family. I have studied Christianity, Buddhism, Islamism and Hinduism on my own to have a better understanding. My formal education was Business.
Again, your search is laudable!!! I would love to dialogue on any ‘‘teaching’’ of the Catholic Church with which you took issue. Please do not judge any group by its bad---or even mediocre---’‘individuals’’ or a barrel by its bad apples.
In your experience can you identify for me which if any of those many religions you studied suggests that any person should be forced to violate his/her conscience?
Do YOU adhere to such force on principle?
Originally posted by Merge:
Originally posted by Merge:
I am NOT talking about abortion, nor have I in this thread. The things that are being talked about are the things that prevent pregnancy from occurring. ….I am personally pro-life.
The prescriptions and procedures being demanded by Obama go far beyond contraception. They specifically include sterilization and abortion, too. You might not have talked about them, but Obama’s ‘‘minions’’ have!
You are Pro-Life and I say halleluiah! That is a principle you conscientiously support. Would you feel your rights were violated if the government were to promulgate and enforce a regulation that forced you and your wife (to be?) to abort any pregnancy after one child is born? If not, why not?
The news reports that Obama is now considering a change in these regs and I say great! If so, that would not relieve him of being characterized as anti-Christian, just as being politically savvy.
This post was edited on 2/10 1:55 PM by Old_alum
