Where is the outrage? Separation of Church and State
- Thread starter DenverBamaFan
- Start date
Ah yes...California has struck again!!! Indeed where is the indigantion and outrage?
------------------
"AND THOUGH SHE BE BUT LITTLE, SHE IS FIERCE"
From: "Seabiscuit"
A quote from Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer's Night Dream".
Act III
Scene II
O, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.
------------------
"AND THOUGH SHE BE BUT LITTLE, SHE IS FIERCE"
From: "Seabiscuit"
A quote from Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer's Night Dream".
Act III
Scene II
O, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.
The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, what else is new!
------------------
"AND THOUGH SHE BE BUT LITTLE, SHE IS FIERCE"
From: "Seabiscuit"
A quote from Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer's Night Dream".
Act III
Scene II
O, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, what else is new!
------------------
"AND THOUGH SHE BE BUT LITTLE, SHE IS FIERCE"
From: "Seabiscuit"
A quote from Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer's Night Dream".
Act III
Scene II
O, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.
I personally see why this ruling was laid down. I am confused as to why you guys don't? Is it just a moral issue, or something else that I am missing?
------------------
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana... The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer on NBC's Today show, August 22.
------------------
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana... The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer on NBC's Today show, August 22.
The ruling boiled down to one issue: Is Catholic Charities a "religious employer" as defined by California law.
The ruling was that since Catholic Charities:
1. Gave aid to people regardless of denomination
and
2. Employed people regardless of denomination
That it did not meet the definition.
The argument seems reasonable enough, though I am curious how the case would have turned out had it involved a Catholic school instead of a Catholic charity.
------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
The ruling was that since Catholic Charities:
1. Gave aid to people regardless of denomination
and
2. Employed people regardless of denomination
That it did not meet the definition.
The argument seems reasonable enough, though I am curious how the case would have turned out had it involved a Catholic school instead of a Catholic charity.
------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." --Woody Allen
Other than a moral problem, what is the major beef that someone could have with the ruling?
------------------
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana... The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer on NBC's Today show, August 22.
------------------
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana... The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer on NBC's Today show, August 22.
What if Catholic Charities hired only Catholics? Would that not be discrimination under California law?
I agree with the one dissenting Judge that the problem may be that their definition of religious employer is too strict, but under current law it would appear that the ruling is correct. Just because they have to provide insurance for birth control does not mean their Catholic employees have to use it.
Personally, I don't understand why insurance pays for birth control, except in certain medical situations. Is it because the costs of unplanned births would be higher than paying for the drugs?
I agree with the one dissenting Judge that the problem may be that their definition of religious employer is too strict, but under current law it would appear that the ruling is correct. Just because they have to provide insurance for birth control does not mean their Catholic employees have to use it.
Personally, I don't understand why insurance pays for birth control, except in certain medical situations. Is it because the costs of unplanned births would be higher than paying for the drugs?
Over time, as religion / prayer has been removed from schools, ten commandments removed from public buildings, religious symbols (cross) prohibited to be worn by students, the Bible prohibited from being on campus, T-shirts with scripture prohibited, the question of free speech versus separation of church and state has been debated here and there are a few posters who think the separation of Church and State is the most important amendment in our bill of rights and feel we most always avoid that slippery slope.
This time the Separation of Church and State is trampled. The veil reasoning of the definition of “charity” is about as absurd as what the definition of “is” is. I was just curious if the defenders of Separation of Church and State were going to be consistent or follow the left wing justification for this absurdity.
BTW, I didn’t need the California Supreme Court to define “Charity” for me to know the Catholics are a religious group and think birth control is a sin.
[This message has been edited by DenverBamaFan (edited 03-02-2004).]
This time the Separation of Church and State is trampled. The veil reasoning of the definition of “charity” is about as absurd as what the definition of “is” is. I was just curious if the defenders of Separation of Church and State were going to be consistent or follow the left wing justification for this absurdity.
BTW, I didn’t need the California Supreme Court to define “Charity” for me to know the Catholics are a religious group and think birth control is a sin.
[This message has been edited by DenverBamaFan (edited 03-02-2004).]
All well and good, save for the fact that the legal issue is not the definition of "charity", but rather the definition of "religious employer".
Unless I musunderstand your argument, you are upset that the state overruled a religious organization, inferring government interference in religion.
If that is not your position, then I apologize for the following analogy.
Government law (state or federal) is superior to church law in this country, and always has been. If a church is devoted to handling poisonous snakes, the state can (and has in the past) step in and stop the practice for safety reasons.
If that is not your position, then I apologize for the following analogy.
Government law (state or federal) is superior to church law in this country, and always has been. If a church is devoted to handling poisonous snakes, the state can (and has in the past) step in and stop the practice for safety reasons.
Denver, you said "I was just curious if the defenders of Separation of Church and State were going to be consistent or follow the left wing justification for this absurdity". So if I agree with the descision, it is an absurd left wing opinion. I feel that this ruling was very consistent. As JT said, it is mainly concerned with the problem involving employment.
Second, Do you not agree with prayer removed from schools, or were you just making a statement of nutrality?
------------------
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana... The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer on NBC's Today show, August 22.
Second, Do you not agree with prayer removed from schools, or were you just making a statement of nutrality?
------------------
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana... The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer on NBC's Today show, August 22.
That is painting with a very broad brush when the first amendment to the constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....
Quite a stretch when you have to pull out the snakes to make your point. You could of used human sacrifices as well, that wouldn't go over.
What this is really about is the secular movement and chipping away of religious freedom. One day we will have the right to worship in privacy but not have any public display so as not to offend someone.
I would think it would be just as easy for the court to support the first amendment and tell the folks who want birth control to buy it themselves or go work somewhere else.
I assume if they had mass at the hospitals then they would be defined as a religous organization? Of course, that would be held illegal under some other so-called rationale.
After my daughter's third child was born at St Vincent's Hospital here in Birmingham (A Catholic hospital), she had her tubes tied, BUT she couldn't have it done there. She had to go somewhere else BECAUSE St. Vincent's is a Catholic hospital and it's not their policy to promote birth control. Sooooooooo WHAT????
If you don't like the policy, you go somewhere else. Catholics shouldn't be forced to provide something for employees that is against their religion.
Leave it up to Bob to try to find something - ANYTHING - to take the side of secularists.
------------------
"AND THOUGH SHE BE BUT LITTLE, SHE IS FIERCE"
From: "Seabiscuit"
A quote from Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer's Night Dream".
Act III
Scene II
O, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.
[This message has been edited by CrimsonNan (edited 03-03-2004).]
If you don't like the policy, you go somewhere else. Catholics shouldn't be forced to provide something for employees that is against their religion.
Leave it up to Bob to try to find something - ANYTHING - to take the side of secularists.
------------------
"AND THOUGH SHE BE BUT LITTLE, SHE IS FIERCE"
From: "Seabiscuit"
A quote from Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer's Night Dream".
Act III
Scene II
O, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.
[This message has been edited by CrimsonNan (edited 03-03-2004).]
EXACTLY, Nan.
Has anyone stopped to think that maybe those people that sued should just be grateful that their employers provide any benefits at all? The entitlement mentality of our society makes me want to throw up. Your employer does not owe you anything but compensation for your time. That's why they call insurance, vacation, etc. BENEFITS. They are a privilege, not a right. If the employer does not see fit to provide it, then you should take the salary they pay you and BUY IT YOURSELF instead of suing them to force them to give it to you.
I've remarked before on this board that I sometimes wish I could have grown up 100 years ago, or even earlier. A couple of you "golden oldies" have mentioned to me that it wasn't as great as I might imagine (of course). But tell me, back in the "good old days," were there that many people that felt like they were entitled to so much? It drives me insane!
Employer-provided health insurance is additional compensation for work. As are employer-matched retirement funds additional compensation.
Oh, please. Getting the key to the executive washroom is a privilege. Health insurance is a bit more basic than that.
They call it a "benefits package" because that sounds better than "a bunch of things we are offering you in lieu of higher pay". It may just be a matter of semantice, but in my mind there is a huge difference between a company offering health insurance and that same company offering a weekend at the company condo.
Try to keep up:
Individual health care insurance is prohibitively expensive.
No one but an idiot would deny the necessity of health insurance in this day and age--particularly if you are raising a family.
Companies can negotiate group rates for health insurance and get people lower prices. They provide these policies to their employees in lieu of the higher pay necessary to pay for individual policies. The employee gets health care coverage, the employer gets reduced payroll, increased productivity, and higher employee retention.
That would explain a lot.
With regard to the California case, it's an interesting one to be sure. I haven't been able to find copies of either the decision itself or the law being challenged, so I might be off on some details.
The law mandates that company-provided health care plans cover costs for "women's reproductive health", including birth control. There is a clause that exempts "religious businesses" from the mandate. The court ruled that the business in question did not meet the criteria to be considered a religious business.
Texas Tide cut to the heart of the matter earlier:
That's the bottom line.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, jthomas. You're right about individual insurance being prohibitively expensive. My point, which I think you didn't completely catch, is that benefits are (or should be) up to the employer's discretion. If Company X doesn't want to pay for insurance, it can pay that higher salary. If it decides to pay for insurance, it's up to the company to decide what it wants to offer. Government has no business telling the company what benefits it has to provide. (I think this should be true for both religious and secular companies; I have not read the entire decision either, but from what I understand, the company did not qualify as a "religious employer" under California law.)
Don't put words in my mouth and then insult me for them. I have not denied the necessity of health insurance. Obviously, if a company wants to hire the most qualified individuals, it needs to offer such enticements--and a nice benefits package, as you stated, is often cheaper for the company than paying a higher salary.
That's ludicrous (the company having to provide insurance for birth control. At the end of the day, whatever the company decides to do should be its business, NOT the government's.
[This message has been edited by DMaguire27 (edited 03-03-2004).]
You have to understand religious conviction to appreciate the Catholics position.
You also probably wouldn't understand why it would upset me to know that my tax dollars were being used to provide an abortion to someone. Catholics don't just think birth control is a sin just for Catholics but for anyone.
I also found your response to DMaguire27 condescending and your arguments weak. Care to clarify the 666 in your handle and does this indicate you may have some bias in this case.
denver
I'm not arguing about Catholicism or whether or not a government should be able to force a company to provide health insurance. My argument is based solely on the information provided in the linked article on California law. The way I understand it is that if you provide health insurance then you must provide coverage for birth control.
If Catholic Charities has a problem with this they need to do what it takes to get redefined as a religious employer, or just cease to do business in California. I never said the law was fair or made sense, but if they are going to do business in California then they must abide by California laws. They can vote for politicians who favor their views, lobby for the law to be changed, and/or appeal the court decision.
I agree that the government should not be able to tell a company what benefits they must provide, but that's the law in California. It would seem that they could choose to drop benefits altogether but then they could not compete with other employers. Health insurance is not merely a benefit, it can be a determining factor in accepting a job.
I used to be a Catholic so I understand their conviction, but that does not exempt you from the law. It seems to me the main problem is how a religious employer is defined, apparently even California allows exemptions if you meet the criteria.
If Catholic Charities has a problem with this they need to do what it takes to get redefined as a religious employer, or just cease to do business in California. I never said the law was fair or made sense, but if they are going to do business in California then they must abide by California laws. They can vote for politicians who favor their views, lobby for the law to be changed, and/or appeal the court decision.
I agree that the government should not be able to tell a company what benefits they must provide, but that's the law in California. It would seem that they could choose to drop benefits altogether but then they could not compete with other employers. Health insurance is not merely a benefit, it can be a determining factor in accepting a job.
I used to be a Catholic so I understand their conviction, but that does not exempt you from the law. It seems to me the main problem is how a religious employer is defined, apparently even California allows exemptions if you meet the criteria.
Latest threads
-
Big Ten Teams Afraid To Play Down South In August (In The Heat)- Started by selmaborntidefan
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
Alabama Earns No. 2 Seed at NCAA Hattiesburg Regional from May 30-June 2- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 4
-
-
