Santorum?

[dcmdale]

Wow. Don’t follow fnet for a couple of days and see what happens.



I agree with what Inq has written, so I am not going to go through a bunch of long winded me too’s. Just some general comments:

That I don’t like Roman Catholic theology or the practices of that church does not mean that I won’t defend their right to believe and practice it without unnecessary governmental interference. My right to believe and practice my religion and your right to practice yours is entirely wrapped up in their right to practice their religion. Yes, that recognizes that there can be compelling state interests (e.g., a terrorist cell hiding in a mosque claiming refuge) that might require the state to violate religious beliefs, but the state action must be compelling, the scope of the violation as narrow as possible, and there must not be another approach. I would include disgorging pedophiles within the compelling state interest exception, not this.



As to this abstract claim of rights (or bananas) not associated with the Constitution, I don’t know what you are talking about. The Constitution limits what the federal and (after incorporation) the state governments can do with respect to private institutions. I have heard people complain about a manger scene in a church Christmas pageant as violating their personal rights to freedom of religion. Sorry, no. You seem to have some notion that there exists an common uber-morality that can be appealed to outside the law to guide policy decisions. No. The Constitution and laws embody the social agreement in the U.S. and how we arrive at changes to it.



As I thought I made clear in my response to Capt Slo-mo, while both as a voter and a sometime advocate and legal historian, I have no question that this is way over the Constitutional line. As someone who has assisted in the preparation of dozens of appellate briefs, I have no illusion about the complexity of some of the legal issues. Personally, I think the real question is not which way the Court would decide, but how narrow or broadly the decision will be applied.



That there is disagreement within certain elements of the Catholic church is irrelevant. That a portion of the Catholic church believes this way is enough to trigger the First Amendment protections, at least as to that segment. I don’t really care about the polls or Catholic voters. One of the things about the protections associated with minority viewpoints is that saying that the majority disagrees is irrelevant.



I agree with you that one of the stupidest parts of ObamaCare is that it reinforces the tying health insurance to employment. Single payer is neither the only other option nor the best.



In these economic times, there are many things that I would like to have different about my employment relationships. If employers had to give me what I wanted in order to hire me, they probably wouldn’t. Indeed, the primary reason that I am not hired in my primary current position is that the organization dislikes paying benefits so 4 of 5 workers are contractors and straight hourly.

The legality of the requirement that church auxiliaries hire non-believers is, of course, one of the complications mentioned above whose constitutionality, I expect, would come up during a case like this. Quite likely, the two go hand in hand.



The difference in view between those that hold that not taxing something that could be taxed is “subsidizing” vs. those who do not is about a reconcilable as half full/half empty. Fruitless argument.



I would absolutely expect that within the context of a Islamic University, Methodist accountants would be respectful of the religious nature of the institution and sharia as applied to non-Muslims in a non-Islamic country. Not requiring that of employees effectively secularizes the institution and defeats the religious purpose it was created for.

[Inquartata]

I think it unfortunate that you elided the part about Muslim institutions in fact having non-Muslim employees, as that crystallizes the issue. If it's good policy to help the Catholic hierarchy enforce dogma on the laity and non-Catholics at tax-subsidized institutions, then it's equally good policy to assist Muslim institutions to require obedience to sharia law for its employees.

OK...but I've still got a couple of concerns about the comparability of Catholic schools and Muslim ones.

For one, the fact that a Muslim school might have non-Muslim employees might well be due to nothing more than the current climate of suspicion toward Muslims. That is, the hiring might be purely for public relations purposes---and absent 9-11 the administrators of those schools might well have indulged a presumptive preference for fellow Muslims.

For another---which shari'ah would rule? As I understand it the codes differ not only according to sunni or shia et al but by country as well. Could we expect all of the Muslim administrators and teachers, from disparate backgrounds, to agree on a single one? Would a sunni professor from Saudi Arabia agree to be bound by a code approved by a shia administrator from Iran---or Indonesia? And don't let's get started on ahmadiyya and sufism, much less the sects and splinters within the basic divisions---

Catholicism doesn't really have this. There is one Church, one Pope ( these days ), one dogma. And AFAIK a "render unto Caesar" attitude toward nonreligious conducts.

The fact (as you point out) that Islam is viewed quite differently from Catholicism is what makes the comparison compelling. If it's good for the Catholic church, it's good for the mosque.

Except that the religions are not the same in the way they treat the issues...

For that matter - 60 years ago, Catholics suffered from mainstream repression and paranoia that would have put them in the same place. Go further back to Al Smith's candidacy and it's even more clear - they were viewed as foreign and dangerous.

Sure. But hopefully the courts would no more be ruled by public sentiment when examining Muslim religious protections than they were back then WRT Catholic ones.

It's clear to me, if not agreed by you, that this is part of providing affordable health-care - period. I do not agree with this "top down, government run, private world is too chaotic so we must take over" theory.

Well, but the last time I checked "affordable health care" was not a right---and certainly not a right in the same class as religious freedom. So I cannot see how a convincing argument can be made for elevating the provision of health care over something specifically singled out for protection in the Constitution.

It's also unfortunate that you removed the part about the Catholic faith not being monolithic. There is a lot of dissent there.

We aren't talking about "the faith", though. We are talking about "the Church". Which very much IS a monolith.

That Tom O'Leary in Boston dissents from some point of official doctrine or that Mary Clark in New Jersey has an abortion despite the prohibition on same scarcely matters to the question at hand, because the Church is not a democracy and its policies are not formed through referenda. For purposes of the religion which is protected by the law, there's one set of rules for all, regardless of whether they agree with them. If they don't want to go along with this, they are free to leave the Church and take up another religion, or even form their own. But no court is going to rule that because Parishoner X doesn't like the Church's proscription on contraception the Church is no longer entitled to protection of its doctrinal elements under the law and the state may direct it to disregard them. Should the Church choose to levy religious punishments such as excommunication on parishoner X, the courts are not going to tell the Church that it cannot. And this would not change IMO even should 51% of all parishoners agree with X. Religions, again, are not democracies.

Ultimately - we should not be taking sides in helping any religious authorities enforce dogma.

Or in forcing them NOT to enforce them. Where does that end? What use is the principle of religious freedom if the state may meddle in any and every aspect of it if only it can come up with a high-sounding reason, like "individual protection"?

In my opinion, if you want to be an "individual" in matters of Church dogma, and to be free of Church sanction for violating same, then leave the Church. Don't expect the Church to bend for you. Don't expect the law to make it bend for you.

( And maybe you should find somewhere else to work as well, if it means that much to you... )

Within limits, of course. No one expects a kind of Spanish Inquisition----

We should certainly not be using tax dollars to support religious authorities require people not of their religion to adhere to dogma - that's tantamount to establishing a religion.

Unless they have voluntarily agreed to be bound by those strictures? As for example by accepting employment?

He alludes to the genuine conflict (which I have also mentioned), but says "So, asks America’s national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?" In addition to majority of Catholics - it's also a good number of Catholic institutions as well.

Eh. When it comes to the Constitutional protection of religion, I still think those "institutions" don't amount to a hill of beans. There is only one institution that matters in that sense. Make it otherwise and it's a different religion altogether.

Someone should remind Mr. Kristof, too, that the Catholic Church is not a democracy...

[NeverWas]

Wait, since when are medicine, hospital administration, and health insurance (or providing it to your employees, not parishioners) categorized as religious practices? If you get into those businesses you follow the same rules as everyone else.

[Inquartata]

That's like saying that if a church holds a bake sale the proceeds must be taxable because selling baked goods puts them in a secular business just like "everyone else" who does so.

Or if a priest counsels parishoners his income should be taxed because he's a therapist, just like "everyone else" who counsels people about their private problems.

Or if a cathedral is built the church is now a construction company or general contractor and therefore...

[migopod]

That's like saying that if a church holds a bake sale the proceeds must be taxable because selling baked goods puts them in a secular business just like "everyone else" who does so.

Or if a priest counsels parishoners his income should be taxed because he's a therapist, just like "everyone else" who counsels people about their private problems.

Or if a cathedral is built the church is now a construction company or general contractor and therefore...

That's like saying that if atheist me utters a pater noster I'm a church and therefore can claim tax exempt status.

[jkormann]

That's like saying that if a church holds a bake sale the proceeds must be taxable because selling baked goods puts them in a secular business just like "everyone else" who does so.

Or if a priest counsels parishoners his income should be taxed because he's a therapist, just like "everyone else" who counsels people about their private problems.

Or if a cathedral is built the church is now a construction company or general contractor and therefore...

If it is a charity, then it should be covered. If it is a for-profit, then it should be taxed. Churches and other institutions organize as charity or non-profit with the goal of maxing out their endowment and distributing the rest [1]. ETS (and others that I know of) is a non-profit in the sense that they don't carry over a balance each year. Otherwise they are as money-hungry as anyone and pay almost nothing in taxes (property, income, etc).

To Inq's point - if they are providing services outside of their defined role or serving that role, then it should be covered. Most churches use general contractors, so that last point is a red-herring.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati...esting_Service

[OROD]

God told me last night that I dont have to pay taxes, or follow any other laws created by man for that matter. He told me it's because he's the lawgiver, and any laws made by man are blasphemous and extremely offensive to him. Also, that I should spread the word. So, here I am spreading the good news.

Now, I'm sure we can all agree that laws no longer apply to me, since they contradict my religious beliefs and teachings. Am I right Inq?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Depends. Can you get someone to wear a collar and go on the Sean Hannity show on your behalf and gravely intone: "...
you should be willing to die (for your conscience-related beliefs)?"

[OROD]

Depends. Can you get someone to wear a collar and go on the Sean Hannity show on your behalf and gravely intone: "...
you should be willing to die (for your conscience-related beliefs)?"

Well my religion is still young, but I'm pretty sure I can get someone to wear a big hat and collar and go suck up to Hannity and O'Reilly, and profess their willingness to die for whatever I tell them. BTW, God just told me that anyone who truly believes in him gets $1 Million and a years supply of donuts when they die. Hells yeah! I asked him about virgins, but he said that's a little trickier and he's still working on it.

Oh yeah, I also asked him what happens when you die if you dont believe in him. He said in that case you're forced to watch Fox News for eternity. Wow, I'm so glad I found the one true faith. Things could have gone horribly wrong otherwise.

[Nick]

Islam is the light.

[Inquartata]

That's like saying that if atheist me utters a pater noster I'm a church and therefore can claim tax exempt status.

Yep. Works both ways.

God told me last night that I dont have to pay taxes, or follow any other laws created by man for that matter. He told me it's because he's the lawgiver, and any laws made by man are blasphemous and extremely offensive to him. Also, that I should spread the word. So, here I am spreading the good news.

Now, I'm sure we can all agree that laws no longer apply to me, since they contradict my religious beliefs and teachings. Am I right Inq?

Only when you get legal recognition of your status. Which of course the Catholic Church has, and you don't, oh Man of Straw.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Oh, so the guvvermint gets to decide what is a true religion and what isn't? And yet, it can't legally interfere w/ freedom of religion...and yet guvvermint (by long established conservative credo) is not supposed to pick winners and losers?

Wow...if this was the old Star Trek show, Captain Kirk would parlay that into having the World Conservator 3000 computer self destruct from programming conflicts...

[jkormann]

Reminds me of the discussions at church where I can pin the Highly Conservative with the phrase, "Jesus is (was) a liberal." His teachings are about compassion, tolerance and not being a busy-body into someone else's affairs. Help your neighbor when they need it.

With regard to if the Church should pay (income, property, etc) taxes, Link.. They use services, so let them also help to pay for them.

[OROD]

Only when you get legal recognition of your status. Which of course the Catholic Church has, and you don't, oh Man of Straw.

What gives a person (or group) the right to do whatever they want simply because they claim it to be their "belief"?

The Constitution?

So I only have freedom of religion as long as it's on the "approved" list, is that right? Well I guess I missed that part of the First Amendment.

Isnt it funny, all this time you're defending small government, the Constitution, and freedom of religious beliefs and teachings. But, apparently freedom of religion only applies to those religions you deem worthy. My little religion, I guess I dont have enough money to get Constitutional protection or to fund a 24-hour cable propaganda TV network.

Do tell us Inq, what makes my religion less worthy of Constitutional protection than Catholicism?

[jkormann]

.. what makes my religion less worthy of Constitutional protection than Catholicism?

Mass*.

* multiple defintion
[edit: not answering for Inq and adding footnote]

[jeff]

@telkanuru - I appreciate your frustration, and I agree Inq was being disingenuous (I have used stronger expressions), but I just cant muster outrage every time he plays some shenanigans to "win" an argument. In this case (1) he says something false and irrelevant, (2) I point that out in part of a post - it took maybe 30 seconds to find the proof on Google - and (3) in his response, he carefully scissors out that part of the post. If he doesn't quote it in his reply, it's as if it never happened, right? I've complained about this many times over the years and it's never done any good. At this point I just have to recognise that Inq taking the extra effort to deliberately remove exactly the part of a response that shows he said something nonsensical is as close as he gets to admitting he's wrong. In this case, you know what he did, I know, and he knows (and tacitly admitted it.) Our conversation got him to eventually respond (with yet more irrelevancies) without apologizing for the sneaky trick, but, that's about as good as we can expect.

@dcmdale - you seem surprised that the debate continued after your previous comments, despite what you felt were argument-ending statements? Have you been on f.net before? That just isn't done here.

Private institutions can of course have their manger scenes - who said otherwise? It's different on public property or with public funds" argument, where it violates the establishment cause by establishing a national religion - you know, the kind that has mangers - and prefers that over other religions. But we weren't talking about that - even though there are too many people that feel entitled to have their religious symbols and dogma in government premises. There's this little thing about teaching Creationism in public schools that occasionally gets a wee bit of attention.

To the rest of it: it's not "not taxing", it's directly funding. Catholic Charities, who IIRC you mentioned previously, disburses government funds, and are indeed subsidized. The hospitals about which we were talking are getting federal funding. It's not just about exemption from taxation. When I said "tax-subsidized institutions" I meant it. It's only your opinion that Obamacare enshrines tying healthcare to employment and that single payer isn't the best alternative - it's only my opinion that you misunderstand the former and are mistaken on the latter - so much for opinions.

I would have stronger sympathy if the Bishops were actually being forced to cut a check to pay for birth control, but they have an exemption for that - which has apparently been adequate at the state level in many states. Both you and Inq have miss the point that the employees in the institutions involved aren't on the payrolls of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. That's not the only thing to be said about it, but that should be sufficient (I know it's not).

Let's look at St. Joseph's in my area http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/index.htm Thats the hospital where the staff did an abortion to save a woman's life, and after the fact the ethics committee was attacked by the local Bishop. The executive team is lay except for one Sister in Organizational Outreach. If you look at the mission, vision and values statement you see "healing ministry of Jesus" - highly non-specific, alongside "For guidance and moral foundation, Dignity Health's Catholic hospitals use The Ethical and Religious Directives, published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. For guidance and moral foundation, Dignty Health's secular hospitals use the Dignity Health Statement of Common Values." So, they take guidance from the Bishops, but not in all cases, and apparently not money (which is central to the entire argument), and they don't work for them. Further, St. Joe is part of the Dignity Health organization formerly Catholic Healthcare West: http://dignityhealth.org/pages/why.asp "Why did Catholic Healthcare West change its governance structure and name? ...The new structure and name enable us to grow into a national system, welcoming both Catholic and non-Catholic care centers into the system, while respecting the identity and integrity of each"

Ahem.

Besides that: the (Catholic) Leadership Conference of Women's Religious, the Catholic Health Association (600 hospitals, 1,400 other healthcare facilities), the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the aforementioned Catholic Charities, the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, have all expressed their support for the Affordable Healthcare provision and the provision put in last week. Are you saying that their rights of religious freedom and expression don't count? As said by Professor Tentler of Loyola University "most Catholics would take exception to the bishops' argument that only the bishops get to say what is Catholic morality in very difficult situations". Loyola is a Catholic University, please note.

To your last bit: you say that Methodist accountants at an Islamic university should be respectful of the religious nature of the institution. I agree - but when they go home they get to eat a ham sandwich. Their healthcare is what they think it should be.

I don't expect this to be "argument ending" or to convince you - but this is hard evidence that there's two sides to this, that freedom of religion and conscience and constitutional issues are on both of them, and not just on the one you prefer. As far as the political output from this: this is a women's issue, and women vote too.


@Inq - In your returning to the non-Muslim at a Muslim institution: I think you should have started with "sorry for trying to disingenuously remove the bit where I was wrong", but I've given up on that. Your further response is not much better: you indulge in speculation about PR-based hiring of non-Muslims. In other words - you're just making things up again.

As to there not being a single authority for Islam - so what? Are you saying that only religions who had the foresight to arrange themselves in a single organization get to have religious rights? That's just a silly argument. I guess that Christians in general don't, by your suggestion, because there are lots of different types of them, and even within some well-known branches - like Episcopalians or Baptists for example, there are substantial differences in policy. You're grasping. I've covered most of the rest of your points above.

If it's good for the bishops (not Elizabeth Bishop, who I think would act differently) to require obedience to Catholic rules by non-Catholics at affiliated institutions, it would be equally good for an Imam to require that employees at Muslim-affiliated institutions to be obedient to sharia law. In principle it's one and the same thing. In reality, the posture from right-leaning politicians would never permit that, while permitting the very same thing to religious they like. That's the whole point.

Sigh - I just noticed that you censored out (in your response to me) Gingrich's selective ardor for religious freedom "Gingrich has said that the government should respect "our" religion, and that he is "tired" of "respecting every religion on the planet". It's clear what he means by that." You know, Inq, you make it hard to remain civil.

Ah, last bit: you said "Unless they have voluntarily agreed to be bound by those strictures? As for example by accepting employment?" And where do you see that in any contract? Here's the Career's page at St. Joe: http://www.chwcareers.org/Facilities...eers/index.htm Doesn't seem to be any such clause there.

[dcmdale]

Oh, so the guvvermint gets to decide what is a true religion and what isn't? And yet, it can't legally interfere w/ freedom of religion...and yet guvvermint (by long established conservative credo) is not supposed to pick winners and losers?

The "gets to" part is less agreed to than that the "do." When there is a military draft in place, pacifist churches grow rapidly. Those churches see these conversions as legitimate. Draft boards often do not. Where a claim of First Amendment right impairs something that the government deems important, the government has, at times pushed-the-limits-of/trampled-upon the First Amendment. That is true of free speech/free press. It is also true of religious freedoms. If the First Amendment is not to be honored more in its breach, then breaches need to be screamed about when they happen.

The government's perspective is that they are not allowed to discriminate between religious beliefs, but that it is a question of fact that can be decided in court whether an individual claiming religious belief actually believes. Thus, as a practical matter, Orod's claim would be met by skeptical government agencies--starting with the IRS. Since the 1980's, the IRS has gotten very aggressive about recognizing any church regardless of religion. Orod's church would probably be declared an attempt at tax fraud. Whether that is consistent with the First Amendment is fairly subject to debate since, in fact, Orod doesn't actually believe those things. There are recognized religious groups that have beliefs not too dissimilar from what Orod pronounced with the key difference being that they actually have believers.

If Orod decides to develop a religion around his fundamentalist atheism which seems to reflect his actual religious belief, he can join other recognized atheist and agnostic groups. Even unorganized, his religious beliefs are entitled to protection from governmental intrusion.

[OROD]

The government's perspective is that they are not allowed to discriminate between religious beliefs, but that it is a question of fact that can be decided in court whether an individual claiming religious belief actually believes. Thus, as a practical matter, Orod's claim would be met by skeptical government agencies--starting with the IRS. Since the 1980's, the IRS has gotten very aggressive about recognizing any church regardless of religion. Orod's church would probably be declared an attempt at tax fraud. Whether that is consistent with the First Amendment is fairly subject to debate since, in fact, Orod doesn't actually believe those things. There are recognized religious groups that have beliefs not too dissimilar from what Orod pronounced with the key difference being that they actually have believers.

I would be curious as to how exactly the government could demonstrate that I do not in fact believe what I claim to believe. Whether or not I was previously a non-believer is irrelevant, since my belief is predicated on a revelation given to me by God only 2 days ago.

If Orod decides to develop a religion around his fundamentalist atheism which seems to reflect his actual religious belief, he can join other recognized atheist and agnostic groups. Even unorganized, his religious beliefs are entitled to protection from governmental intrusion.

Lack of a religious belief is not a religious belief, any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not playing baseball is a sport. Regardless, since Monday I have a firm belief in the one true God, who made his presence known to me through the voice in my head, and not to be confused with the fake god of the Catholics.

[dcmdale]

@dcmdale - you seem surprised that the debate continued after your previous comments, despite what you felt were argument-ending statements? Have you been on f.net before? That just isn't done here.

No. I never expect people to stop arguing here. More, it was surprise at the volume over a weekend.

Private institutions can of course have their manger scenes - who said otherwise?

The point is that religious freedom applies as a restriction on governmental action and activity. If I understand some of your previous arguments you have been arguing for religious freedom for individuals with respect to religious institutions--specifically the right to be able to force a religious institution to violate its teachings. People with religious beliefs are entitled to organize and create religious institutions as an expression of their belief and to fulfill their religious practices. Catholic Charities and, generally, Catholic hospitals exist to express their belief in benevolence (as they understand it) to the community. In the case of U.S. Catholic Charities, about $116M / year comes from church offerings. I did not look at the financials for the various hospitals.

It's different on public property or with public funds" argument, where it violates the establishment cause by establishing a national religion - you know, the kind that has mangers - and prefers that over other religions. But we weren't talking about that - even though there are too many people that feel entitled to have their religious symbols and dogma in government premises. There's this little thing about teaching Creationism in public schools that occasionally gets a wee bit of attention.

That can and has been a discussion of its own. Atheists and agnostics are pretty demanding when it comes to getting their dogma into public schools as well.

To the rest of it: it's not "not taxing", it's directly funding. Catholic Charities, who IIRC you mentioned previously, disburses government funds, and are indeed subsidized. The hospitals about which we were talking are getting federal funding. It's not just about exemption from taxation. When I said "tax-subsidized institutions" I meant it.

Having spent a fair amount of time looking at the financials of Catholic Charities over the last couple of weeks, you are only partially right. Catholic Charities, like many such groups, is a group of groups, not a single entity. Some of those groups have significant government funding. Quite a few have none. As I said at the beginning, I don't believe that the government should be funding them at all because I think that creates an entanglement.

It's only your opinion that Obamacare enshrines tying healthcare to employment and that single payer isn't the best alternative - it's only my opinion that you misunderstand the former and are mistaken on the latter - so much for opinions.

Again, another fruitless discussion.

I would have stronger sympathy if the Bishops were actually being forced to cut a check to pay for birth control, but they have an exemption for that - which has apparently been adequate at the state level in many states. Both you and Inq have miss the point that the employees in the institutions involved aren't on the payrolls of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. That's not the only thing to be said about it, but that should be sufficient (I know it's not).

If you disentangle the corporate structures, I believe that you will find that most of these belong to the Bishops. Each religion organizes legal ownership of real property and ancillary organizations differently. Part of the Catholic church's mechanism for maintaining control is that the Bishop's control is reinforced by legal ownership. That would not be true in most Protestant groups. If an organization that calls itself Catholic wants to offer contraceptive coverage and is outside the legal control of the Bishops, I certainly don't object if they offer it.

Let's look at St. Joseph's in my area http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/index.htm Thats the hospital where the staff did an abortion to save a woman's life, and after the fact the ethics committee was attacked by the local Bishop. The executive team is lay except for one Sister in Organizational Outreach. If you look at the mission, vision and values statement you see "healing ministry of Jesus" - highly non-specific, alongside "For guidance and moral foundation, Dignity Health's Catholic hospitals use The Ethical and Religious Directives, published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. For guidance and moral foundation, Dignty Health's secular hospitals use the Dignity Health Statement of Common Values." So, they take guidance from the Bishops, but not in all cases, and apparently not money (which is central to the entire argument), and they don't work for them. Further, St. Joe is part of the Dignity Health organization formerly Catholic Healthcare West: http://dignityhealth.org/pages/why.asp "Why did Catholic Healthcare West change its governance structure and name? ...The new structure and name enable us to grow into a national system, welcoming both Catholic and non-Catholic care centers into the system, while respecting the identity and integrity of each"

It was said earlier that the Bishop cut St. Joe's loose. Is this change in governance and structure part of that?

Besides that: the (Catholic) Leadership Conference of Women's Religious, the Catholic Health Association (600 hospitals, 1,400 other healthcare facilities), the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the aforementioned Catholic Charities, the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, have all expressed their support for the Affordable Healthcare provision and the provision put in last week. Are you saying that their rights of religious freedom and expression don't count? As said by Professor Tentler of Loyola University "most Catholics would take exception to the bishops' argument that only the bishops get to say what is Catholic morality in very difficult situations". Loyola is a Catholic University, please note.

Irrelevant as noted previously. If this forces a split in the Catholic Church, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. That most Catholics aren't Catholic doesn't surprise me. They have rights of religious freedom and expression with respect to the state. They have the right to leave the church. The church also has the right to excommunicate them. They have within the church whatever rights to discuss and dissent as are allowed within the legal structure of the church.

To your last bit: you say that Methodist accountants at an Islamic university should be respectful of the religious nature of the institution. I agree - but when they go home they get to eat a ham sandwich. Their healthcare is what they think it should be.

They are welcome to pay for any healthcare they choose. If the Islamic University was required to supply them with pulled pork, that would be the problem.

I don't expect this to be "argument ending" or to convince you - but this is hard evidence that there's two sides to this, that freedom of religion and conscience and constitutional issues are on both of them, and not just on the one you prefer. As far as the political output from this: this is a women's issue, and women vote too.

I don't see any hard evidence yet on your side with respect to the issue going both ways.

I have no doubt that your side votes too (unfortunately) and that some of them are women. How this plays out in the election is anyone's guess. If it leads to Santorum getting the nomination, it probably works out well for Obama.

[OROD]

Atheists and agnostics are pretty demanding when it comes to getting their dogma into public schools as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk