Do you believe in abortions?

[dbroncos78087]

The forcing of religious institutions into providing in their health care plans contraception and the morning after pill. That to me is as close as your going to get to religion butting heads with government in the abortion debate.

If its such an affront, then why do their employees want it so badly? Makes me think this argument loses strength when we remember that almost every employee of those companies is grateful for the very same coverage.

Should insurance sold to Jehovah's Witnesses not be required to cover transplants or blood transfusions?

[The Schmooze]

Why are so-called religious institutions int he insurance business in the first place?

[cabernetluver]

Why are so-called religious institutions int he insurance business in the first place?

For the same reason they were in the wine business (Christian Brothers).

[dbroncos78087]

As long as they didn't take out a loan with interest to start that business…that might be construed as usury.

[The Schmooze]

For the same reason they were in the wine business (Christian Brothers).

Of course, to make money.

However isn't it the same thing if the Christian Brothers one day refuse to apply the government standard of making the wine acceptable for consumption(which I have no clue what that would be, considering my limited knowledge of wine ), claiming it's "against their religion"?

If you're going to enter a business(especially the insurance business) you have to comply with regulations just like everybody else. Organized religion can't play this card, unless of course they want to pay income taxes like everyone else. Then they'd have the right to complain.

[cabernetluver]

Of course, to make money.

However isn't it the same thing if the Christian Brothers one day refuse to apply the government standard of making the wine acceptable for consumption(which I have no clue what that would be, considering my limited knowledge of wine ), claiming it's "against their religion"?

If you're going to enter a business(especially the insurance business) you have to comply with regulations just like everybody else. Organized religion can't play this card, unless of course they want to pay income taxes like everyone else. Then they'd have the right to complain.

Now I am only writing about CA laws, but, the two major insurance companies I know pretty well, that are owned by their religion, they do have to follow all the same rules as the rest. So, frankly, I don't get the special treatment idea.

[HILLBILLYBLACK]

If its such an affront, then why do their employees want it so badly? Makes me think this argument loses strength when we remember that almost every employee of those companies is grateful for the very same coverage.

Should insurance sold to Jehovah's Witnesses not be required to cover transplants or blood transfusions?

It's not that it's an "affront", it's the the idea of artificially messing with conception in any way, completely flies in the face of all their beliefs. ALL their beliefs, the very thing their whole church structure hinges on; which is that God is the source of all being, and the transmission of human life is from God and therefore sacred and that all life should be ordered around marriage between a man and a woman being the sacrament which reflects God's relationship with his church... both of which are supposed to bring about new life, one life being spiritual, one life being "human".

It's interesting to have these discussions between people who live in big cities and/or were educated in big cities, and people who live out in small towns, parishes, and counties. Out here in the boonies, we're really used to churches running hospitals. And we're used to there being certain things that are done and not done in those hospitals because that hospital might be called "Jewish Hospital" or "Baptist Healthcare" or "St. Mary's Hospital". But I think if you've never seen or known hospitals being run by churches, then yeah it would seem pretty odd and weird. But a lot of churches consider tending of the sick to be one of their commandments from God, so that's how the hospitals began.

I do think religions should have the right NOT to give people contraception or abortions if those things are completely contrary to everything that religion believes about the world. Otherwise, the church would be no different than the society it's in. Which... that can be a Very Bad Thing. Not everyone wants church to reflect society, and not everyone wants society to reflect church. So again, the striking of the balance. Churches must have realm of their own outside of being forced what government dictates though, and I think plenty of churches have a right to be sensitive to that. Nazi government and Judaism, Roman government and Christians, and so on.

[natepro]

You don't have to live in the sticks to come across hospitals like that. Just try to find a non-religiously affiliated hospital in St. Louis. There's one's like St. Johns that are, I think, part of Mercy Health, but most of the hospitals in both MO and IL in that area are run by BJC... which stands for Barnes Jewish-Christian. There's "Big Barnes" downtown that's the major hospital in the city, but even in the outlying suburbs, most of their hospitals are BJC or otherwise religiously affiliated.

Which is exactly why it's important that they be made to provide the same level of care as every other hospital. It is no longer a matter of choice when I or anyone else would have to drive, literally, hours to find a hospital without religious affiliation. How absurd that we'd expect to have some of the best health care in the world, while simultaneously denying people basic care because of someone else's religious beliefs.

[dbroncos78087]

I don't see any reason why they are different and deserve immunity from laws that other groups get quite frankly. Otherwise where does that argument end? Can they pick and choose which rules of society apply to them and which don't? Are they immune from health department rules for the meals they provide? Are they immune from the rules that govern the care of young children? Are they immune from rules that ban murder and honor killings? The list goes on and on which makes these types of immunities completely absurd.

[HILLBILLYBLACK]

I don't see any reason why they are different and deserve immunity from laws that other groups get quite frankly. Otherwise where does that argument end? Can they pick and choose which rules of society apply to them and which don't? Are they immune from health department rules for the meals they provide? Are they immune from the rules that govern the care of young children? Are they immune from rules that ban murder and honor killings? The list goes on and on which makes these types of immunities completely absurd.

I can see what you're saying. But private institutions in America DO get to pick and choose under certain circumstances! That's one of our basic freedoms we fight for and depend on.

For instance, I once lived in a city where the city voted to make all public bars non-smoking. So some people got the idea to open private clubs where you paid a fee to be a member of the club, and then you could go in there and smoke and drink... because private clubs had the ability to allow things that public bars did not. The paying membership made that option available.

So with a private hospital, shouldn't they be allowed to say, "We don't want to provide abortions or contraception"? I mean, no one is forcing anyone to go to THAT hospital or work at THAT hospital, right? So if you wan't an abortion or contraception, you go to a hospital that doesn't have those standards or rules.

But I think from one standpoint of the churches it goes farther than the abortion debate cause I have read some websites where they are afraid that if the government can force them to provide abortions and/or contraception, they can also be forced to have gay marriages in their churches as well.

I just think in America, one thing that makes us great is we live in this very uncomfortable balancing act where very few of the answers come easy, and always with a lot of debate. And I think that's awesome, and so good. Again, I don't think churches should be forced to provide contraception OR gay marriages for that matter, but by the same token, neither do I think there should be prayer in public schools and a lot of other things "church people" tend to want.

[HILLBILLYBLACK]

You don't have to live in the sticks to come across hospitals like that. Just try to find a non-religiously affiliated hospital in St. Louis. There's one's like St. Johns that are, I think, part of Mercy Health, but most of the hospitals in both MO and IL in that area are run by BJC... which stands for Barnes Jewish-Christian. There's "Big Barnes" downtown that's the major hospital in the city, but even in the outlying suburbs, most of their hospitals are BJC or otherwise religiously affiliated.

Which is exactly why it's important that they be made to provide the same level of care as every other hospital. It is no longer a matter of choice when I or anyone else would have to drive, literally, hours to find a hospital without religious affiliation. How absurd that we'd expect to have some of the best health care in the world, while simultaneously denying people basic care because of someone else's religious beliefs.

At the same time, the sad irony is, they are providing the healthcare at all, because of their religious beliefs. But now our "consumer driven" society is saying, "I don't care why you opened your hospital or what you believe, you have to do it the way *I* want you to, even if it's against all of your beliefs."

And it's interesting too because... I think it would be fair to ask them if they take government grants to keep their institutions open. If so, I think if I were the government I might say, "Okay, you can run your hospital with no contraception, even though that is contrary to what our government standards would be, but this will mean you have to function without the aid of government monies."

That seems like it would be a fair compromise. But then the hospitals would probably argue that prices would have to go up, which would mean they could not serve the very poor, which is part of what they feel is their religious obligation. So yes, the arguments get complex and convoluted, and all sides have VERY valid points, IMO.

[natepro]

At the same time, the sad irony is, they are providing the healthcare at all, because of their religious beliefs. But now our "consumer driven" society is saying, "I don't care why you opened your hospital or what you believe, you have to do it the way *I* want you to, even if it's against all of your beliefs."

And it's interesting too because... I think it would be fair to ask them if they take government grants to keep their institutions open. If so, I think if I were the government I might say, "Okay, you can run your hospital with no contraception, even though that is contrary to what our government standards would be, but this will mean you have to function without the aid of government monies."

That seems like it would be a fair compromise. But then the hospitals would probably argue that prices would have to go up, which would mean they could not serve the very poor, which is part of what they feel is their religious obligation. So yes, the arguments get complex and convoluted, and all sides have VERY valid points, IMO.

That should be exactly what we say to them, yeah. I feel the same way about pharmacists that don't want to dispense certain legal medications. I could care less why you got into it, you went into a business where you could be confronted with that choice, so it's on you, not on the person who was prescribed a legal medication by a doctor that happens to be against your, not their, beliefs. If you don't like it, you're more than free to go into another profession. You're not more than free, nor should you be, to effectively push you beliefs onto someone else.

Times change. Religious institutions are always reluctant to change with them, but in the end they always do. It doesn't matter if we're talking about slavery, or women's rights, or racial minorities, or homosexuality, or now contraception. The changes happens slower there than it does in the rest of society, as you'd expect from a dogmatic group, but it happens eventually either way. Adapt or die.

[HILLBILLYBLACK]

That should be exactly what we say to them, yeah. I feel the same way about pharmacists that don't want to dispense certain legal medications. I could care less why you got into it, you went into a business where you could be confronted with that choice, so it's on you, not on the person who was prescribed a legal medication by a doctor that happens to be against your, not their, beliefs. If you don't like it, you're more than free to go into another profession. You're not more than free, nor should you be, to effectively push you beliefs onto someone else.

Times change. Religious institutions are always reluctant to change with them, but in the end they always do. It doesn't matter if we're talking about slavery, or women's rights, or racial minorities, or homosexuality, or now contraception. The changes happens slower there than it does in the rest of society, as you'd expect from a dogmatic group, but it happens eventually either way. Adapt or die.

Well, I couldn't disagree more with what you said. The person filling the script can also go somewhere else. Religious people need to have the right to live their faith wholly, with as least compromise necessary as possible, just as non-religious people have the right to NOT be forced to act contrary to THEIR convictions. If government law forces religious people to operate completely counter to their beliefs, then you're getting into governments that become not even just "nannies", but dictatorships, which quickly becomes bloody.

I'm gonna take a big ol' guess that there are some things that some religions are NOT gonna change about... but I won't be around in 200 years to tell, so there's really no way to argue that one.

[flips333]

Well, I couldn't disagree more with what you said. The person filling the script can also go somewhere else. Religious people need to have the right to live their faith wholly, with as least compromise necessary as possible, just as non-religious people have the right to NOT be forced to act contrary to THEIR convictions. If government law forces religious people to operate completely counter to their beliefs, then you're getting into governments that become not even just "nannies", but dictatorships, which quickly becomes bloody.

I'm gonna take a big ol' guess that there are some things that some religions are NOT gonna change about... but I won't be around in 200 years to tell, so there's really no way to argue that one.

By your logic perhaps religious people should not go into a profession that requires them to do things that go against their beliefs. Should a clerk at the counter be able to refuse to sell someone a condom? If so why would they condescend their values to work at a place that offers condoms?

Religious people don't have the right to live their faith wholly if it infringes upon another person's rights. If your religion says you should beat your wife when she disobeys... sorry we as a society have different rules.

[natepro]

Well, I couldn't disagree more with what you said. The person filling the script can also go somewhere else. Religious people need to have the right to live their faith wholly, with as least compromise necessary as possible, just as non-religious people have the right to NOT be forced to act contrary to THEIR convictions. If government law forces religious people to operate completely counter to their beliefs, then you're getting into governments that become not even just "nannies", but dictatorships, which quickly becomes bloody.

I'm gonna take a big ol' guess that there are some things that some religions are NOT gonna change about... but I won't be around in 200 years to tell, so there's really no way to argue that one.

Nonsense. I've lived in towns with one pharmacy, and no public transportation. I guess they're supposed to call a cab to take them to the next pharmacy 30 minutes away?

Again: Nonsense.

Religious people can live their faith however they want, as long as it is not pressed onto other people. Not filling a perfectly legal and valid prescription does exactly that.