Where is the outrage? Separation of Church and State

[jthomas666]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DenverBamaFan:
You have to understand religious conviction to appreciate the Catholics position.</font>

Being raised Catholic and having nine years of Catholic school lets me appreciate the Catholic position quite well, thank you.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">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.</font>

1. Ah, yes, the infamous "I am right; you don't agree with me, so clearly you do not fully understand my self-evident argument" ploy. Now that's condescending and weak.
2. I have issues with tax dollars paying for abortion.
3. The issue at hand deals with contraception, not abortion.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Catholics don't just think birth control is a sin just for Catholics but for anyone.</font>

At this point, the issue becomes the degree to which Catholics should be allowed to impress that belief upon others.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">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.
</font>

1. My tone in the response was due to my misinterpretation of DMmaguire's argument. I'll address that in another post.

2. It's ironic that you call my arguments condescending and weak, and then you attack my arguments with a lame series of ad hominem attacks, topped off with a tired slur against my username. Surely you are not suggesting that my arguments would be better if my username were "Child of Light"?

 

[jthomas666]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DMaguire27:
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. </font>

I did take your argument the wrong way, and my tone got out of hand as a result. My apologies.

As I understand it, the rationale behind the CA law is that a large percentage of a woman's health care costs are related to reproductive health. So the law mandated that those costs be covered.

I'd be curious to see if the bill was aimed at employers or insurance companies; my wife has often expressed annoyance that while infertility treatments are only partially covered, if at all, Viagra is fully covered. Go figure.

 

[Nate Harris]

This California decision appears to be in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.

The quote below is from the decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990) written by Justice Scalia.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> [This proposed religious exemption] would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this.
</font>

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/empdiv.html



[This message has been edited by Nate Harris (edited 03-03-2004).]

 

[CrimsonNan]

Maguire said:

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!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey Maguire, I don't go back 100 years - lol - but when I was a kid we didn't have miracle drugs, TV, microwave ovens, VCRs, computers, cell phones or CD players. Houses for the most part weren't air-conditioned and neither were cars - oh heavens! But the grocery store and drug store made deliveries, and the doctor made house calls. I can't begin to mention all the strides in medicine.

Now if you really go back 100 years OR earlier, as you said, there's a bunch of other stuff to contend with. Such as, all the above mentioned things, plus no refrigerators, no cars, no telephones, and besides you might just have to worry about Indains attacking you.
However, ever so often a cave, or at least a log cabin, out in the woods somewhere sounds nice (as long as there would be in-door plumbing and I could plug in my coffee pot - lol)!!!