Contraceptive Kerfluffle

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Not being a Catholic, I don't have a dog in this race, nor do I fully understand the rhetoric coming from some quarters of the religious community.

To my understanding, the new health care act already has a carve out for actual churches, but when the churches engage in business activities like hospitals, day cares, thrift shops and the like, they have to offer contraceptive coverage to all their employees.

And to me, that's seems the crux of the matter--an offer. As far as I know, there is no requirement for the religious businesses to take each employee into a rosary-encrusted grotto, lash them to a chair, and force feed them Jaz pills. If the employee (especially a non-Catholic one) wants the Pill...they can get it covered...just like a priest can get his Cialis prescription covered. But neither HAS to take it if their conscience dictates otherwise.

"Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience." That was a Catholic priest (cassock, white collar, red cap) on the Today show this morning. And this illustrates part of the problem--no individual is being forced to buy contraception--but a high clerical figure is making exactly that inflammatory argument.

It also seems to me that the religious folks' position might have a bit more weight if a sizable majority of sexually active Catholic women didn't already use some form of contraception...and that 28 states have very similar if not even more stringent contraception requirement coverages...and I haven't seen a daily wave of religious indignation over those insurance clauses.

So what gives about this wrinkle in the health care law?

[prototoast]

I am conflicted on this. On one hand, I object to the government mandating what should and should not be required as part of anyone's health care coverage. On the other hand, I object to religious organizations receiving special treatment.

[OROD]

"Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience." That was a Catholic priest (cassock, white collar, red cap) on the Today show this morning. And this illustrates part of the problem--no individual is being forced to buy contraception--but a high clerical figure is making exactly that inflammatory argument.

I'm sure if young boys could get pregnant, then all of a sudden Catholic priests would be for contraception.

[jeff]

Topic also being discussed in the "Santorum" thread. I just posted a quote from a professor of theology from Marquette University (a Catholic and Jesuit institution) saying that the Church's position is baloney. (paraphrasing wildly... )

[the ancient one]

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, the Flatlanders

[MyrddinsPrecint]

And to me, that's seems the crux of the matter--an offer. As far as I know, there is no requirement for the religious businesses to take each employee into a rosary-encrusted grotto, lash them to a chair, and force feed them Jaz pills.

But what about Yaz pills?

; )

[Capt. Slo-mo]

They're even worse.

Interesting panel discussion on NPR this morning. Questions were asked about what is more important: the "conscience" of a church or a corporation (even if church-related), or the religious conscience of the individual?

Also discussed: the many non-Catholic employees who would be disadvantaged by some company imposing its religious beliefs on them, and whether a cave-in by the Obama administration to the pressure by the Catholic organizations could lead to "a bookbinder suddenly saying he is personally opposed to contraception, and therefore none of his employees will be given coverage."

[Inquartata]

Adding to the perplexity are the charges of hypocrisy which could fairly be leveled at a Church at least one American diocese of which once owned shares of a company which made 'the pill' in its investment portfolio.

But the real issue here---beyond election season, that is---is whether church is to be made subject to state. If so, are we going to see organized religion entering politics wholesale in return?

[OROD]

But the real issue here---beyond election season, that is---is whether church is to be made subject to state.

You mean, whether churches are to be made to follow the same laws as everyone else? Is that like, some novel idea these days?

If so, are we going to see organized religion entering politics wholesale in return?

As opposed to only the Republican party?

How about this... the government doesnt subsidize religious organizations and they're forced to follow the laws and rules that every other organization has to follow. In return, the government doesnt promote any religion or tell anyone what to believe. I call it... separation of church and state.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

But the real issue here---beyond election season, that is---is whether church is to be made subject to state.

Just wondering...is it also a "war on religion" for a Catholic charity or hospital to have to follow building codes, get inspections for renovations, meet Federal minimum wages standards, etc? How is that different in principle?

Also, don't many of the Catholic hospitals get federal money?

[jeff]

don't many of the Catholic hospitals get federal money?

"all" would be apt.

[Inquartata]

You mean, whether churches are to be made to follow the same laws as everyone else? Is that like, some novel idea these days?

Apparently...at least to some.

Hey, those rascals should be made to pay taxes while we're at it, huh? I mean, they benefit from our society and government just like everybody else, they should have to pay their fair share!

Wait---you mean they don't already pay taxes just like everybody else? Is that like, some novel concept these days?

As opposed to only the Republican party?

Yes. Do you think it'd be better if they could engage in the full spectrum of political activities, across the board?

They are left alone in certain ways that other organizations are not, and they are restricted in certain ways that other organizations are not. So yes, if you think that "churches are to be made to follow the same laws as everyone else", you have invented a 'novel concept'.

How about this... the government doesnt subsidize religious organizations and they're forced to follow the laws and rules that every other organization has to follow. In return, the government doesnt promote any religion or tell anyone what to believe. I call it... separation of church and state.

And you call it that...wrongly. It's meaning in established law is in fact just about exactly the opposite.

[downunder]

Apparently...at least to some.

Hey, those rascals should be made to pay taxes while we're at it, huh? I mean, they benefit from our society and government just like everybody else, they should have to pay their fair share!

Wait---you mean they don't already pay taxes just like everybody else? Is that like, some novel concept these days?

er, I think churches get tax relief because they're a charitable organisation and organised for non-profit for benefit to the public etc etc. I'm not sure how that relates to the specific argument about the Catholic church.

[Lady Quindecim]

Back to contraception, I really do not get what the big deal is. I use the pill - just an aspirin - held between my knees.

Just a joke because I do not really discuss politics or religion. or religious politics. or political religion.

[OROD]

Hey, those rascals should be made to pay taxes while we're at it, huh? I mean, they benefit from our society and government just like everybody else, they should have to pay their fair share!

Wait---you mean they don't already pay taxes just like everybody else? Is that like, some novel concept these days?

They should have to pay taxes according to the rules that everyone else has to follow. Why is that so hard to understand?

Yes. Do you think it'd be better if they could engage in the full spectrum of political activities, across the board?

I think that if they're not being subsidized by the government, then they should be allowed to engage in the same political activities as any other organization. That is to say, very little. Right now we have way too much money and influence distorting government in the name of special interests. Get rid of them and let a government of the people work for the people, not for businesses or for churches,... for everyone, equally.

They are left alone in certain ways that other organizations are not, and they are restricted in certain ways that other organizations are not. So yes, if you think that "churches are to be made to follow the same laws as everyone else", you have invented a 'novel concept'.

Maybe it's a novel concept to you, just seems like common sense to me.

And you call it that...wrongly. It's meaning in established law is in fact just about exactly the opposite.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." - ​Thomas Jefferson

[telkanuru]

As fun as it is to see the two trained monkeys mud-wrestling again, I'm more interested in the limits of how this would be applied. There seem to be vast grey areas, particularly in cases which are not life threatening and can be treated at another hospital. Here, as elsewhere, there is a balance to maintain between personal freedoms.

[Gav]

Apparently in Oaklahoma, very soon, every sperm is sacred.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

See...this is the point where I begin to wonder: why is requiring all employers to provide contraception such a giant overreach of government into personal liberties and religion...yet having religious zealots propose legislation to impose their twisted version of religion on everyone--religious or not--perfectly acceptable?

[downunder]

Apparently in Oaklahoma, very soon, every sperm is sacred.

Small government!

[Inquartata]

They should have to pay taxes according to the rules that everyone else has to follow. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'd guess that it's because the state, and in particular the courts, and foremost the Supreme Court, have decided that they are not like "everyone else".

397 U.S. 664
Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York

"Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.

Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit, and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing them.


The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches -- over 75 years -- religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. Such treatment is an "aid" to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre-Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exercise generally so long a none was favored over others and none suffered interference.

While I'm not sure that I agree with the logic of all that, it's the present state of the law. A raft of other policies flow from it---the restrictions on the involvement of churches in political activities, for instance. The two appear to form a sort of bargain: We don't interfere with you, you don't interfere with us. Removing the tax exemptions would probably result in the end of all provisions of the bargain...and I'm not sure that removing the restrictions wouldn't cause more harm than the additional taxes would be worth.

Additionally, there's that whole "power to tax is the power to destroy" business...

I think that if they're not being subsidized by the government, then they should be allowed to engage in the same political activities as any other organization. That is to say, very little.

Really? You mean, the "very little" that corporations and unions do?

Religion manages to meddle too much in politics and government as it is IMO. I don't want it going hog-wild.