Christians Being Persecuted/discriminated Against In The Usa

[Lilllabettt]

You are deforming the analogy to suit your own purposes. The issue was never about personal participation with one's own body. The issue was always over the participation of one's money. Nobody is being forced to personally use contraceptives on their bodies. My analogy was not about being drafted into war, but about my money (tax dollars) being used for tyrannous wars abroad. I do not want my money being used to fuel a 600 billion dollar ministration of Death. It is a part of my cherished religious tradition to be anti-war. Why does nobody stand up and defend my right not to pay taxes for the ministration of Death?

 

 

OK. Lemme spell it out.

 

If the government wanted to use my tax dollars to give away free contraception, THAT would be the equivalent of  your tax dollars being used to fund a war you think is immoral.

 

But thats not the problem here. Cuz guess what. Breaking news. The government already does this. State and federally funded programs provide access to low and no cost contraceptives. Using tax payer $$$$$  Film at 11.

 

Nobody complained that this was persecution. Just that it was stupid. What's new and special is that now the government wants to require Catholics to personally make arrangements for people to have access to free contraception.  Personally. And if they don't they will suffer the consequences.

 

Pretend if instead of just using your tax $$$ for an immoral war, they wanted you to personally sell war bonds to raise money for it. Or suffer the consequences. 

 

See the difference? 

[John Ryan]

OK. Lemme spell it out.

 

If the government wanted to use my tax dollars to give away free contraception, THAT would be the equivalent of  your tax dollars being used to fund a war you think is immoral.

 

But thats not the problem here. Cuz guess what. Breaking news. The government already does this. State and federally funded programs provide access to low and no cost contraceptives. Using tax payer $$$$$  Film at 11.

 

Nobody complained that this was persecution. Just that it was stupid. What's new and special is that now the government wants to require Catholics to personally make arrangements for people to have access to free contraception.  Personally. And if they don't they will suffer the consequences.

 

Pretend if instead of just using your tax $$$ for an immoral war, they wanted you to personally sell war bonds to raise money for it. Or suffer the consequences. 

 

See the difference? 

 

I still have to arrange to pay my taxes for the year. What if I am an employer? I have to take a certain portion of my employee's salary and hand it over to the Government to pay for foreign wars.

[Lilllabettt]

I still have to arrange to pay my taxes for the year. What if I am an employer? I have to take a certain portion of my employee's salary and hand it over to the Government to pay for foreign wars.

 

But you see, in that scenario the government is acting as a screen between you and the evil that is being committed.

 

Paying taxes is not evil. Jesus commands us to render unto Cesar. When the government uses our good act (paying taxes, obeying just law) to go further than our intention and commit evil (immoral war) it makes us remote cooperators in evil.  We are not held directly responsbile for every possible negative consequence of our actions down the line. Otherwise we would all be in trouble most of the time.

 

If you personally raised money to fund an immoral war you would be a direct cooperator in evil. If someone tried to compel you with force of law to personally raise money for an immoral war, they would be violating your conscience.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[4588686]

But you see, in that scenario the government is acting as a screen between you and the evil that is being committed.

Paying taxes is not evil. Jesus commands us to render unto Cesar. When the government uses our good act (paying taxes, obeying just law) to go further than our intention and commit evil (immoral war) it makes us remote cooperators in evil. We are not held directly responsbile for every possible negative consequence of our actions down the line. Otherwise we would all be in trouble most of the time.

If you personally raised money to fund an immoral war you would be a direct cooperator in evil. If someone tried to compel you with force of law to personally raise money for an immoral war, they would be violating your conscience.

I still don't see the substantive different between the two. Why when those funds go to an insurer rather than the government does the moral calculus change?

[John Ryan]

I still don't see the substantive different between the two. Why when those funds go to an insurer rather than the government does the moral calculus change?

 

I have the same question. In one case, the employer is giving money to an insurance company to cover contraceptives. In the other case, the employer is giving money to the Government to pay for its cathedrals of Death.

Edited April 30, 2014 by John Ryan

[4588686]

of course, if health care wasen't tied to employment this wouldn't be an issue.  

[Lilllabettt]

I still don't see the substantive different between the two. Why when those funds go to an insurer rather than the government does the moral calculus change?

 

the difference is that I am being forced to contract with an insurance provider for the purpose of providing free contraception. The service I am purchasing is insurance coverage for contraception. It does not matter if my employees choose to use it or not. I am being required to personally arrange for them to have the opportunity.

 

When I pay taxes to the government I am not personally contracting with them to provide anything for me. I am fulfilling my obligation to render unto Cesar. 

 

Say you are a pacifist and the government comes along and insists you pay to provide your employees access to a military recruiting event - or suffer the consequences.That would be a violation of conscience. Does't matter if your people end up going or not, or if they choose to join the military or not. You are being forced to personally arrange to make an immoral activity available and easy. In most religious traditions, the choice to make an immoral activity available and easy is a sin. 

 

Now, say the government comes along and uses your tax $$$ to pay to provide access to a military recruiting event. That might be stupid policy. But its not a form of religious persecution. And ... guess what. The government does this already. All the time. 

[Luigi]

In World War II - and I assume today, as well - Christian soldiers were provided with C-rations, and Jewish soldiers were provided with K-rations. K for Kosher. Tax funds paid for both.

 

But Jews were not required to eat non-Kosher food. Nor were Christians required to eat Kosher food (although they would have had no objection to doing so). The government respected religious beliefs enough to accommodate the religious diversity of (a WHOLE lot of people in) the military.

 

 

Obama's reasoning on health care is "There are medical benefits to X,Y, and Z which you Catholics disagree with. Even though you disagree with them, you must participate in them so that others can get the health benefits they provide." Well, there are also medical benefits to eating shrimp, clams, lobster, and pork - good low-fat protein! But I don't see him forcing Muslims to eat them because that would be against their religion. Government respect for Muslim beliefs, but not Catholic beliefs - selective government respect for religious diversity.

 

I think he should tell Muslims, "You must participate in the eating of shrimp, clams, lobster, and pork because of the health benefits they provide." I'd be interested to see how that played out.

 

 

BTW, no one dies from eating seafood or pork. Compare that with the fact that someone does indeed die from the use of abortifactient birth control.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Luigi

[John Ryan]

the difference is that I am being forced to contract with an insurance provider for the purpose of providing free contraception. The service I am purchasing is insurance coverage for contraception. It does not matter if my employees choose to use it or not. I am being required to personally arrange for them to have the opportunity.

 

When I pay taxes to the government I am not personally contracting with them to provide anything for me. I am fulfilling my obligation to render unto Cesar. 

 

Say you are a pacifist and the government comes along and insists you pay to provide your employees access to a military recruiting event - or suffer the consequences.That would be a violation of conscience. Does't matter if your people end up going or not, or if they choose to join the military or not. You are being forced to personally arrange to make an immoral activity available and easy. In most religious traditions, the choice to make an immoral activity available and easy is a sin. 

 

You are creating a false distinction where there is none. I am obligated, under penalty of imprisonment, to pay for wars through taxation. Let's call it the social contract. I do not care if you call it a "contract" or "taxation". The same fact remains: I am being compelled to give money over to another party that will provide a service (whether that is contraceptives or "defense"). 

 

Let me ask you this: would you have any problem with the Government using public tax dollars to give free contraceptives? Since your problem seems to be about entering into contract with insurance companies, would you support the Government taking over responsibility for contraceptives, say a infinitesimally small fraction of each person's tax dollars is used to provide access to contraceptives?

 

Obama's reasoning on health care is "There are medical benefits to X,Y, and Z which you Catholics disagree with. Even though you disagree with them, you must participate in them so that others can get the health benefits they provide." Well, there are also medical benefits to eating shrimp, clams, lobster, and pork - good low-fat protein! But I don't see him forcing Muslims to eat them because that would be against their religion. Government respect for Muslim beliefs, but not Catholic beliefs - selective government respect for religious diversity.

 

Your analogy is manifestly absurd! Nobody is being forced to use contraceptives.

Edited May 1, 2014 by John Ryan

[Socrates]

I do not really agree with the idea that valid secular policy is equal to discrimination. So, for example, the contraception mandate is not a secular policy that was crafted with the specific intent of discriminating against those who believe contraception is immoral. The policy was created to insure that women have access to contraceptives.

 

Whether or not the mandate was crafted with the specific purpose of persecuting faithful Catholics (something I will never know, as I don't have access to the inner thoughts of those drafting the law), it does in actual fact force faithful Catholics and other Christians opposed to contraception to pay for policies contrary to their Faith.  As one with family long involved in an orthodox Catholic institution affected by this mandate, I know this is a real issue - not some purely academic concern.  

The first amendment guarantees that Congress not pass laws that violate the free practice of religion (which includes more than simple freedom of worship) - and this mandate does exactly that.

 

I would strongly disagree with you regarding the "validity" of Obamacare and the individual mandate in general (even besides the religious concerns), but that goes outside the scope of this debate.

At the Catholic school I'm familiar with (and am an alumnus of), everyone was happy with the insurance plan, which did not cover contraceptives.  No one there is happy with the Obamacare mandate/

There was absolutely no need at all for this law - other than for statist busybodies to impose force everyone else to support their own leftist utopian vision.  

Whether or not you agree with the Church that contraception is immoral, nobody has any obligation to pay for the contraception of others.  People can buy their own beaver dam condoms.

 

 I think it is absurd to cry "discrimination" every time the Government passes a law which you do not agree with. I am personally against the foreign wars the Government has used taxpayer dollars for in the last 14 years. Should that give me the right not to have to pay taxes? Am I discriminated against if I have to pay my taxes?

 

 

 

 

You inadvertently make a strong case against big intrusive government in general - heretical as that notion may be to many.

Originally, as prescribed by our Constitution's framers, the federal government's powers were to be limited to only a few specifically enumerated items.  Today, it seems, people think. that the federal government should have the power to do absolutely whatever it likes unless specified otherwise.

The mandate forces employers against their conscience to buy plans paying for contraceptives, including certain abortifacient drugs.

I don't think it paranoia to suggest that mandating coverage of outright surgical abortion is next, as our almighty Supreme Court has already long ago declared abortion a "constitutional right."

If they did that, would Catholics be right to object then?  Or should we be cool with absolutely anything and everything the government does, so long as the stated purpose is not to discriminate against Catholics/Christians?

 

Exactly how much unnecessary (and I would argue unconstitutional) intrusion of government, and forced violation of conscience and free practice of religion must we take?  Where do we draw the line?

 

Are we obligated to just shut up and passively accept whatever Holy Mother the State mandates, so long as Christians aren't actually being thrown to the lions?  (Though I'm sure even at that point "liberal Catholics" would find some justification for the government's actions - at least if the Emperor happens to be a Democrat.)

Edited May 1, 2014 by Socrates

[John Ryan]

You inadvertently make a strong case against big intrusive government in general - heretical as that notion may be to many.

Originally, as prescribed by our Constitution's framers, the federal government's powers were to be limited to only a few specifically enumerated items.  Today, it seems, people think. that the federal government should have the power to do absolutely whatever it likes unless specified otherwise.

The mandate forces employers against their conscience to buy plans paying for contraceptives, including certain abortifacient drugs.

I don't think it paranoia to suggest that mandating coverage of outright surgical abortion is next, as our almighty Supreme Court has already long ago declared abortion a "constitutional right."

If they did that, would Catholics be right to object then?  Or should we be cool with absolutely anything and everything the government does, so long as the stated purpose is not to discriminate against Catholics/Christians?

 

Exactly how much unnecessary (and I would argue unconstitutional) intrusion of government, and forced violation of conscience and free practice of religion must we take?  Where do we draw the line?

 

Are we obligated to just shut up and passively accept whatever Holy Mother the State mandates, so long as Christians aren't actually being thrown to the lions?  (Though I'm sure even at that point "liberal Catholics" would find some justification for the government's actions - at least if the Emperor happens to be a Democrat.)

 

I was not even judging the policy one way or another. I am actually anti-Statist. I am a Marxist Communist who believes in the dissolution of private property and its guarantor, the State. However, we do live in a liberal democracy and under the rules of the game, I think the contraceptive mandate makes perfect sense. I also think it makes perfect sense in a liberal democracy for the Government to compel me to give tax dollars to fund the behemoth war machine. That has been the extent of my argument. 

 

I am not a social anarchist, however. I do think that the community has the right to violate the conscience of people. So, for example, I am sure you do not agree that a religion which advocates pedophilia should be respected or allowed to exploit children. Oftentimes, political policies violate somebody's freedom of conscience. I understand the need for contraceptives and I understand that certain Catholics do not want to be responsible for providing them. In the system of private property, I personally side with the contraceptive mandate. I think the need for contraceptives outweighs conscience claims, in a system where employees are dependent for healthcare on the capitalist class. This would be so easy to solve in a rational socialist system. Nobody would be forced to produce contraceptives and those that do would distribute them based on need. That is, society could provide needed contraceptives and those who believe them to be immoral would not have to participate in them whatsoever. Money, as a mediating moment, gets in the way of everything. I say lets abolish Mammon, the Mark of the Beast.

Edited May 1, 2014 by John Ryan

[NotreDame]

I was not even judging the policy one way or another. I am actually anti-Statist. I am a Marxist Communist who believes in the dissolution of private property and its guarantor, the State.

 

Sweet!  Can we have unicorns and rainbows too!!??!?!

 

[4588686]

Sweet! Can we have unicorns and rainbows too!!??!?!

Right. Because believing in the dissolution of private capital and the state is silly, unlike believing that one weekly eats the flesh of their once dead man-God.

[John Ryan]

Sweet!  Can we have unicorns and rainbows too!!??!?!

 

I bet the people who lived in feudalism mocked the possibility of the dissolution of their economic order as well.

 

Right. Because believing in the dissolution of private capital and the state is silly, unlike believing that one weekly eats the flesh of their once dead man-God.

 

I find both plausible.

[Fidei Defensor]

Right. Because believing in the dissolution of private capital and the state is silly, unlike believing that one weekly eats the flesh of their once dead man-God.

Daily, thank you.