• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Law’s Contraceptive Coverage Isn’t Burden on Religion, Court Rules

So when Quakers pay income tax a portion doesn't go to the military to finance war? Yes it does under penalty of law. Why should Christians get special treatment?

U.S. Sues Quaker Group Over Taxes - NYTimes.com

The question is, why security of the society gets different treatment. You do nit know the discussion history. That point was interesting decades ago.
 
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed both Houses of Congress by huge margins and was enthusiastically signed into law by President Clinton. It specifically forbids government from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion, unless it can show that the application of the burden both furthers a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of doing that.

...

And the free exercise of religion is exactly why acess to contraception and legal elective abortion before viability should not be burden and allowing those with objections to opt out is the least restrictive means of doing that.

Access to contraception and legal elective abortions before viability is a part of religious liberty.
 
But you are anti-choice. And anti-choicers repeatedly, willfully, and intentionally lie. So how can I be so certain that you're telling the truth when you claim to be an atheist? And if by chance you are actually telling the truth here, then should you not rely on science and reason, not faith and blind belief, as your guide to truth?

they only huge liars in this discussion are pro-abortionists that don't think a live growing fetus is a baby. as on person put it on here. it is simply goo to them. of course dehumanization of people has led to the biggest atrocities that most people
condem, however when it comes to abortion movement. they have dehumanized and lied so much about what a baby is that now they have reduced it to a pile of goo.

it is the ultimate lie to treat life as anything other than life.

so please don't call someone else a liar when propogating the biggest lie of them all. it is a bit hypocritical.

the truth is that a fetus is a baby. a living person and being that you condon in massacring on a daily basis.
that is the truth yet you are blinded by faith and blind belief that it is nothing more than a pile of goo.
 
And the free exercise of religion is exactly why acess to contraception and legal elective abortion before viability should not be burden and allowing those with objections to opt out is the least restrictive means of doing that.

Access to contraception and legal elective abortions before viability is a part of religious liberty.

not when you are catholic and dont' believe in birth control to begin with. however the nuns take it a step further in that by still allowing people to have acces to it even though they are not covering it they are still condoning
birth control.

which is still a violation of their religious beliefs. i think the court either didn't understand the argument and technically got it wrong.
 
not when you are catholic and dont' believe in birth control to begin with. however the nuns take it a step further in that by still allowing people to have acces to it even though they are not covering it they are still condoning
birth control.

which is still a violation of their religious beliefs. i think the court either didn't understand the argument and technically got it wrong.

The Catholic church is not the ruler of the universe as much as it's worked so hard to be over centuries. It's tenets are not the underlying doctrine our the civil law system in the US. In other words, Canon Law...doesn't mean jack in the legal institution of national governance.

Catholic women have abortions. They have since the invent of abortions.

Catholic members can not be legally punished for failing to follow the church's teachings - ANY OF THEM. There are no Catholic Canon Law Police running around arresting church members. MEMBERSHIP IS VOLUNTARY - NOT MANDATORY!

But the biggie in this matter is that birth control is HATED by the church. Why? Fewer Catholics...less money in the collection plates.

Despite the church's teachings CATHOLIC WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD take birth control. Why? It's their freedom as individuals to do what they believe is best for them and their families. If god has a problem with that...then god needs to man up and fix the situation.

Most importantly. Catholic women who take birth control isn't being forced to take it...by any institution, groups, or individuals.

Nuns are the last person's on earth who should be involved in the topic of birth control.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic church is not the ruler of the universe as much as it's worked so hard to be over centuries. It's tenets are not the underlying doctrine our the civil law system in the US. In other words, Canon Law...doesn't mean jack in the legal institution of national governance.

strawman i never said they were. their tenets are protected by the first amendment. when government passes a law that would violate those tenents then they have a right to pursue court action to correct that law.

Catholic women have abortions. They have since the invent of abortions.

strawman we are not talking about any of that irrelevant.

Catholic members can not be legally punished for failing to follow the church's teachings - ANY OF THEM. There are no Catholic Canon Law Police running around arresting church members. MEMBERSHIP IS VOLUNTARY - NOT MANDATORY!

again irrelevant to what the nun believe and their religious views on birth control.

But the biggie in this matter is that birth control is HATED by the church. Why? Fewer Catholics...less money in the collection plates.

catholics believe that the purpose that God intended sex for was procreation. part of sex is getting someone pregnant. if you use something that stops that process in the catholic view point you are committing a sin.
you are seeking sex for physical pleasure and not it's intended purpose. (please note i am not catholic but their argument deserves the same as anything else).

Despite the church's teachings CATHOLIC WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD take birth control. Why? It's their freedom as individuals to do what they believe is best for them and their families. If god has a problem with that...then god needs to man up and fix the situation.

again irrelevant to what the nuns believe.

Most importantly. Catholic women who take birth control isn't being forced to take it...by any institution, groups, or individuals.

again irrelevant to their argument.

Nuns are the last person's on earth who should be involved in the topic of birth control.

Not when the government mandates that they supply it and that goes against their religious beliefs.
 
strawman i never said they were. their tenets are protected by the first amendment. when government passes a law that would violate those tenents then they have a right to pursue court action to correct that law.

strawman we are not talking about any of that irrelevant.

again irrelevant to what the nun believe and their religious views on birth control.

catholics believe that the purpose that God intended sex for was procreation. part of sex is getting someone pregnant. if you use something that stops that process in the catholic view point you are committing a sin.

you are seeking sex for physical pleasure and not it's intended purpose. (please note i am not catholic but their argument deserves the same as anything else).

again irrelevant to what the nuns believe.


again irrelevant to their argument.


Not when the government mandates that they supply it and that goes against their religious beliefs.

Gezzzzz...tenet are protected by the first amendment? Really? How does that work again? Government doesn't have the right to create its own religion. And the first amendment allows the right for the public to create a religion, but just like freedom of speech...they can't do anything they want. There are limitations. Not all tenets are protected. THE ORGANIZATION has certain rights, but aren't limitless rights.

Believing sex is for procreation only is total bull****...and I don't care what church believes such. Anybody who claims sex is for procreation only is either lying or terribly brainwashed.

If an individual chooses to believe that sex is procreation only (no matter who convinced them of such nonsense)...GROOVY. Don't have sex for any other reason...nobody gives a rats ass. But those individual don't have the right to impose that belief on anybody else. There is no SEX POLICE trying to control the motives of why someone has sex. IT'S A VOLUNTARY BEHAVIOR - based on one's choosing!

People can practice what they are taught by the church of their choice - but are not legally bound to do so. But there is a catch. Practicing what one has been taught by a religious organization -ends when they choose to use what they believe to infringe on the PERSONAL rights and privileges of others created within CIVIL LAWS.

Every person in this nation (or anywhere in the world) can pray to their god 24/365 without being infringed on by fellow citizens or government. They can be a living example of what they believe...but don't infringe on MY BELIEFS IN THE PROCESS.

Human reproduction is a VERY PERSONAL part of life...so personal that religions and governments need to stay the **** out of EVERYBODY'S individual lives.

Any clergy or person who belongs to or employed by a church of any brand...should NEVER have control over how its parishioners or congregation access to any methods used to prevent pregnancy. If the church organizations are so overwhelmed because they can't control other people's reproductive lives...JUST DON'T OFFER HEALTH INSURANCE...PERIOD.

And then let the chips fall where they may. I'm guessing without such a benefit...not many women would want to work for any affiliate church organization or enterprises like hospitals and such.

Nuns are in the wrong business - if they believe they have the right to control other's reproductive rights and access to birth control. They need to switch religions and move to Iran...
 
And the free exercise of religion is exactly why acess to contraception and legal elective abortion before viability should not be burden and allowing those with objections to opt out is the least restrictive means of doing that.

Access to contraception and legal elective abortions before viability is a part of religious liberty.

You can assert personal opinions all you like, but that will not make them the law. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to mean anything like what you seem to be talking about. If anything, you seem to have it just backwards. I say "seem" because it's hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say.

The only times the Court has addressed the right to free religious exercise were last year in the Hobby Lobby case, and a few months ago in the Notre Dame case. Both involved an HHS rule made under the Obamacare law that made an "accommodation" for religious organizations regarding contraceptives in employee health care plans. The Court held in the Hobby Lobby case that another proposed HHS rule requiring companies to provide their employees contraceptives violated the RFRA, as applied to the owners of Hobby Lobby, exactly because it was not the least restrictive means of doing that.
 
not when you are catholic and dont' believe in birth control to begin with. however the nuns take it a step further in that by still allowing people to have acces to it even though they are not covering it they are still condoning
birth control.

which is still a violation of their religious beliefs. i think the court either didn't understand the argument and technically got it wrong.
Most Catholics I know are very much ok with birth control.
 
Gezzzzz...tenet are protected by the first amendment? Really? How does that work again? Government doesn't have the right to create its own religion. And the first amendment allows the right for the public to create a religion, but just like freedom of speech...they can't do anything they want. There are limitations. Not all tenets are protected. THE ORGANIZATION has certain rights, but aren't limitless rights.

you only mentioned 1 part of that. the government cannot limit the free exercise either. yep i can't create a religion that requires human sacrifice. that would be a limitation. however their religious belief toward birth control
does not go that far.

Believing sex is for procreation only is total bull****...and I don't care what church believes such. Anybody who claims sex is for procreation only is either lying or terribly brainwashed.
that is their religious belief and frankly your opinion doesn't matter. all that matters is their view of it not yours.

If an individual chooses to believe that sex is procreation only (no matter who convinced them of such nonsense)...GROOVY. Don't have sex for any other reason...nobody gives a rats ass. But those individual don't have the right to impose that belief on anybody else. There is no SEX POLICE trying to control the motives of why someone has sex. IT'S A VOLUNTARY BEHAVIOR - based on one's choosing!

the 1st amendment disagree's with you. they according to their religious beliefs do not believe in contraception. for the government to try and force them to provide is unconsitutional.

People can practice what they are taught by the church of their choice - but are not legally bound to do so. But there is a catch. Practicing what one has been taught by a religious organization -ends when they choose to use what they believe to infringe on the PERSONAL rights and privileges of others created within CIVIL LAWS.

all that matters is what the nuns believe. what other people believe is inconsequential.

Every person in this nation (or anywhere in the world) can pray to their god 24/365 without being infringed on by fellow citizens or government. They can be a living example of what they believe...but don't infringe on MY BELIEFS IN THE PROCESS.

you can buy all the BC you want. if you work for the nuns the don't have to cover it through insurance.

Human reproduction is a VERY PERSONAL part of life...so personal that religions and governments need to stay the **** out of EVERYBODY'S individual lives.

yet the government didn't which is why in the HL case the law was found unconstitutional.

Any clergy or person who belongs to or employed by a church of any brand...should NEVER have control over how its parishioners or congregation access to any methods used to prevent pregnancy. If the church organizations are so overwhelmed because they can't control other people's reproductive lives...JUST DON'T OFFER HEALTH INSURANCE...PERIOD.

they didn't offer it before. the government stuck it's nose where it didn't belong and told them they had to or they could opt out. the fact they have to opt out means it is mandatory. the bigger issue for the nuns isn't that they can opt out,
but that their insurance company still has to provide it. which to them means they are still in violation of their faith.
And then let the chips fall where they may. I'm guessing without such a benefit...not many women would want to work for any affiliate church organization or enterprises like hospitals and such.

no one is forcing them to. they can buy BC just it is not covered by their insurance.

Nuns are in the wrong business - if they believe they have the right to control other's reproductive rights and access to birth control. They need to switch religions and move to Iran...

like most of your post this is irrelevent. catholics on the whole straight up to the pope do not believe in BC or the use of contraception.
if you want to work for a catholic church then those are the guildlines of your insurance. they don't cover BC.

doesn't mean you can't buy it if you want but they don't have to cover it.

your ranting is irrelevant the constitution of the US protects their religious beliefs.
 
Most Catholics I know are very much ok with birth control.

it doesn't matter if they are OK with it. the general acceptance of BC according to the church is not permitted.
the nuns are following the tenants of catholic belief and practice.
 
it doesn't matter if they are OK with it. the general acceptance of BC according to the church is not permitted.
the nuns are following the tenants of catholic belief and practice.
And yet it widely accepted practice to use birth control among most couples in childbearing years in this country.
 
Now that would change the interpretation of the Constitutional text.

There is nothing in the constitution about some religious organizations not having to pay taxes. For one thing, this places the burden on the government to recognize what is or is not a legitimate religion, which does create excessive entanglement between government and religion. Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly how you can't pray while paying taxes on the building you elect to pray in. Those who are not part of a government recognized religion do this.

The fact that people have to opt-out is a problem in and of itself.

That is some pretty serious whining.

Actually no it really wouldn't. Seems churches are no longer non-political, and they have their clear representatives in legislatures... the constitution says, "no taxation without representation," so taxing them would be constitutional.

They never were non-political, and it'd be incredibly naive for us to think that religion has ever been non-political, either in this country or in any other. Their ability to secretly spend money in elections is certainly greater than ever before, though.

Justice Thomas argued in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow that the Establishment Clause was a federalism provision the states insisted on to prevent Congress from abridging their power to make religious establishments. Therefore, Thomas argued, it made no sense for the Supreme Court ever to have held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Establishment Clause and made it a limitation on the states, because that brought about the very result the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent. I think he is exactly right.

There is no precedent, either judicial or legislative, to support this lunatic notion. Thomas is a boob.

The Establishment Clause is the very first part of the First Amendment. It has been the law for 224 years now. Unless you expect it to be repealed any time soon, I don't know why you would care that some group supposedly wanted to make the United States a theocracy.

The establishment clause is the best argument for why religious organizations need to be treated just like secular ones. By giving certain benefits to religious organizations, we are empowering the government to pick and choose which religious expressions are legitimate and which are not. The fact that some can get this tax exemption and some cannot, is the government establishing some religious expressions over others.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed both Houses of Congress by huge margins and was enthusiastically signed into law by President Clinton. It specifically forbids government from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion, unless it can show that the application of the burden both furthers a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of doing that.

I am glad to see you make your disregard for federal law so clear.

What does paying for federally mandated benefits for employees of a company have to do with a person's exercise of religion? That they have anything to do with one another is the insane leap of nonsense that started this whole discussion.

So when Quakers pay income tax a portion doesn't go to the military to finance war? Yes it does under penalty of law. Why should Christians get special treatment?

This is a good example of how, when living in a multicultural society, one does not always get one's way. This discussion over contraceptives is one large group throwing a temper tantrum over not being the only ones here.

And the free exercise of religion is exactly why acess to contraception and legal elective abortion before viability should not be burden and allowing those with objections to opt out is the least restrictive means of doing that.

Access to contraception and legal elective abortions before viability is a part of religious liberty.

Exactly. None of us should be compelled by law to adhere to someone else's religious mores. But the majority religion is constantly given special treatment. Does anyone think, for example, that any such mores embraced by Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism would be getting federal protection like this? No. Only the majority Christians get to subject the rest of Americans to their whims. If we were really protecting religious liberty, these kinds of rules would never exist.
 
Hu
you only mentioned 1 part of that. the government cannot limit the free exercise either. yep i can't create a religion that requires human sacrifice. that would be a limitation. however their religious belief toward birth control
does not go that far.


that is their religious belief and frankly your opinion doesn't matter. all that matters is their view of it not yours.



the 1st amendment disagree's with you. they according to their religious beliefs do not believe in contraception. for the government to try and force them to provide is unconsitutional.



all that matters is what the nuns believe. what other people believe is inconsequential.



you can buy all the BC you want. if you work for the nuns the don't have to cover it through insurance.



yet the government didn't which is why in the HL case the law was found unconstitutional.



they didn't offer it before. the government stuck it's nose where it didn't belong and told them they had to or they could opt out. the fact they have to opt out means it is mandatory. the bigger issue for the nuns isn't that they can opt out,
but that their insurance company still has to provide it. which to them means they are still in violation of their faith.


no one is forcing them to. they can buy BC just it is not covered by their insurance.



like most of your post this is irrelevent. catholics on the whole straight up to the pope do not believe in BC or the use of contraception.
if you want to work for a catholic church then those are the guildlines of your insurance. they don't cover BC.

doesn't mean you can't buy it if you want but they don't have to cover it.

your ranting is irrelevant the constitution of the US protects their religious beliefs.

You spent way too much time responding to what is a predictable reply. NO! What Catholics and nuns believe isn't all that matters. My beliefs are equally protected. Every other belief by all other religions AND ATHEISTS are EQUALLY PROTECTED!

The ruling proves my point...
 
That is some pretty serious whining.

Not really. The fact that business has to opt-out is a problem in of itself. Instead of thinking about what employers want to provide their employees the government just mandates employers provide services and then later when businesses start to complain they don't step back on their coercion, but instead just say, well ok, sign this and opt-out. Of course, it will be public record and it will be used against you, but please sign it if you don't want to take part.
 
There is no precedent, either judicial or legislative, to support this lunatic notion. Thomas is a boob.

Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses. Your calling him a boob, like your calling his argument that the Establishment Clause was a federalism provision the states meant to protect their own religious establishments a "lunatic notion," says far more about you than about him.

I doubt you have even read Thomas' arguments in Elk Grove Unified. They are fairly complex and difficult, as his arguments often are, so you might not understand them even if you had studied them. Your assertion that there is no precedent for what Thomas was arguing is just plain false.

In his concurrence in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris two years before Elk Grove Unified, Thomas had also argued that the Establishment Clause was a federalism provision and doubted the logic of incorporating it. Professor Amar of Yale, an eminent constitutional law scholar, took this same view that the Establishment Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments in his 1998 book "The Bill of Rights," see pp. 36-39. Before that, Justice Rehnquist had taken a similar view in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree in 1985.

In 1963, Justice Stewart had made the very same point in his dissent in School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp: "[T]he Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments" (emphasis added; six states had official religions at the time of the Founding.)

Justice Stewart further commented in Schempp that “the Fourteenth Amendment has somehow absorbed the Establishment Clause, although it is not without irony that a constitutional provision evidently designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy.” This was the same irony Justice Thomas noted in Elk Grove Unified when he said that "As strange as it sounds, an incorporated Establishment Clause prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected—state practices that pertain to an establishment of religion.”

Long before Schempp, in 1947, Justice Frankfurter had argued powerfully in his concurrence in Adamson v. California that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate any part of the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights--including the Establishment Clause--and apply it to the states. And Frankfurter was not the only one to subscribe to this "no incorporation" theory.

Of course nothing in the Bill of Rights originally applied to the states, as the Court made clear way back in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore. It was the Supreme Court, in a long series of decisions starting about 1900, that applied first one bit of it and then another to them. The rationale for this--which has changed considerably over the years--was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to "incorporate" some guarantees in the Bill of Rights (but not others) and apply them to the states. The Court did this with the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, hardly bothering to support the incorporation with any reasoning. That explains Justice Stewart's remark that the Fourteenth Amendment "has somehow" absorbed the Establishment Clause.
 
There is nothing in the constitution about some religious organizations not having to pay taxes. For one thing, this places the burden on the government to recognize what is or is not a legitimate religion, which does create excessive entanglement between government and religion. Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly how you can't pray while paying taxes on the building you elect to pray in. Those who are not part of a government recognized religion do this.
.....

Nore does it say in the Constitution that we may not tape your mouth. Nonetheless, the government is not allowed to do so without better cause than hot air.
 
The fact that people have to opt-out is a problem in and of itself.

This post is hilarious. You are the inventor or "opting out" - of every government rule, law, or regulation that YOU have a personal grudge against.
 
Nore does it say in the Constitution that we may not tape your mouth. Nonetheless, the government is not allowed to do so without better cause than hot air.

Yes it does. The fifth amendment says that you can't be deprived of liberty, in this case the liberty against having your mouth taped, without due process of law. It also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment in the eighth amendment. There is nothing I can imagine where having one's mouth taped is a reasonable penalty for a criminal conviction. So, there is no civil or criminal legal action in which the government can order your mouth taped shut.

I'm glad we had this little exercise.
 
Yes it does. The fifth amendment says that you can't be deprived of liberty, in this case the liberty against having your mouth taped, without due process of law. It also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment in the eighth amendment. There is nothing I can imagine where having one's mouth taped is a reasonable penalty for a criminal conviction. So, there is no civil or criminal legal action in which the government can order your mouth taped shut.

I'm glad we had this little exercise.

It says as much about tape as it does about bakers.
 
If you were judging all whom you believe to the the twats...that would amount to about 7 billion people.

Almost makes it all worth it....he feels that way and yet is helpless to argue for change...based on his own personal beliefs and political philosophy.
 
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed both Houses of Congress by huge margins and was enthusiastically signed into law by President Clinton. It specifically forbids government from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion, unless it can show that the application of the burden both furthers a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of doing that.

I am glad to see you make your disregard for federal law so clear.

Less kids born to people that cant afford them and then require substantial public assistance provided by tax payers is clearly IMO a compelling govt interest. not to mention the higher risks and rates of high school drop outs, juvenile delinquency, and criminal activity attributed to those in socio-economically challenged families.
 
Back
Top Bottom