Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Sesshoumaru]

I believe that was covered in the artical you found:

Catholic Charities said the law interfered with its freedom of religion by requiring it to support a practice the church says is morally repugnant.

Last time I checked, a Catholic orgnization respecting both canon law and 2000 years of Catholic teaching was not forcing its religion on others. Forcing them to throw out those teachings is an extreme act of disrespect and violation.

*Oh, and about the EU thing I mentioned earlier, apparently the artical got put in a big box full of newspapers that I don't have time to go though right now, but I will by the weekend, honest.

[Fifthfiend]

Forcing them to throw out those teachings is an extreme act of disrespect and violation.

Uh, they're still perfectly free to teach that birth control is icky as much as they like. They're just not allowed as an employer to force those teachings on non-Catholic employees.

The Catholic Church can say that its doctrine requires it to pay slave wages, beat its workers, practice human sacrifice, or any number of things you might name, that still doesn't give them the right to do so under US law.

Last time I checked, a Catholic orgnization respecting both canon law and 2000 years of Catholic teaching was not forcing its religion on others.

Except for on its non-Catholic employees, which is exactly what the case was about. Sorry, but 2000 years of Canon Law does not give the Church special discriminatory rights under US law, which is exactly what the separation of church and state is supposed to be about.

[Sesshoumaru]

I think its clear that neither of us is gonna back down on this particular point, although I must admit that if you're resorting to such extreme comparisons you must relize the weakness of your side's arguments.

Know what this thread needs? Some Aquinas http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...s_aquinas.html

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

I think its clear that neither of us is gonna back down on this particular point, although I must admit that if you're resorting to such extreme comparisons you must relize the weakness of your side's arguments.

"I admit that even you must realize how shitty your argument is?" How does one get so humble?

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

Last time I checked, a Catholic orgnization respecting both canon law and 2000 years of Catholic teaching was not forcing its religion on others. Forcing them to throw out those teachings is an extreme act of disrespect and violation.

The fact that birth control is even legal at all in the US is in itself a disgusting insult, really. This particular case is just a specific instance of that. Might as well fight it at its root.

[Fifthfiend]

I think its clear that neither of us is gonna back down on this particular point, although I must admit that if you're resorting to such extreme comparisons you must relize the weakness of your side's arguments.

I guess I could say that resorting to declaring victory and running away is a rather strong indication that you recognize your own arguments as indefensible. But that would be tacky.

I could even point out that you seem to have an easy enough time recognizing extremism when it isn't being carried out by your Church, and that's it's a shame you can't seem to recognize that to us, your desire to see those who do not pledge fealty towards your faith forced to abide by its reproductive injunctions is extreme. But I suspect that's just a river we're not gonna bridge.

So instead I'll just state simply that whatever degrees of extremity you feel differentiate one situation from another, such extremism is exactly what you're opening the door for when you license the representatives of a faith to function as a law unto themselves.

[Sesshoumaru]

Since when are these organizations saying "we'll fire you if you we find out you're contracepting?" No, they're saying, "contracept if you feel like it, just don't expect us to pay for something we consider morally wrong." And don't argue that by refusing to pay for it their 'discriminating,' lecoal offices of the Department of Health have been distributing free condoms for years, so why are they so dead-set on forcing the Church to violate its owns principles? Makes one wonder what their true goal is.

Also, about my 'weakness of your argument,' I was refering to this:

The Catholic Church can say that its doctrine requires it to pay slave wages, beat its workers, practice human sacrifice, or any number of things you might name,

Although opn further reflection, I think I was putting more weight on that than you intended (which doesn't change the fact that its a false comparison). But hey, look at the bright side; its been four pages and no one's called anyone a Nazi...yet, muahahahaha.

[Fifthfiend]

(note: Found another article for this via the new york times.)

lecoal offices of the Department of Health have been distributing free condoms for years, so why are they so dead-set on forcing the Church to violate its owns principles?

The Department of Health? They don't have anything to do with anything.

The issue in question is a state court ruling regarding a California state law in a suit presumably brought by an employer claiming exemption (the articles I'm looking at don't seem to clarify which).

Since when are these organizations saying "we'll fire you if you we find out you're contracepting?" No, they're saying, "contracept if you feel like it, just don't expect us to pay for something we consider morally wrong."

Well, California state law says that if you want to function as a private employer of non-religious employees providing non-religious services, you're not allowed to discriminate as to which kinds of health care you're willing to offer.

I mean, referring back to something I said earlier --

The Catholic Church can say that its doctrine requires it to pay slave wages, beat its workers, practice human sacrifice, or any number of things you might name, that still doesn't give them the right to do so under US law.

-- well, looking at it, it was a bunch of silly hyperbolic crap, so I take it back. Hell the law in question even does make an exception, for organizations that actually employ followers of their religion for the purpose of performing actual religious functions. The door which a ruling for the Church would open, would be for essentially any employer to decide which kind of health care its employees are allowed to receive based on said employer's avowed religious beliefs. And before you say that's an extreme example, from what I'm gathering that's exactly the behavior to which this state law (and similar laws in other states) was passed as a response - private employers refusing to cover birth control on the basis that their religious beliefs gave them license to discriminate against their female employees.

And don't argue that by refusing to pay for it their 'discriminating,'

Well I'm going to, because that's exactly what they're doing. An employer offering a health plan is assuming responsibility for that employee's health care expenses as a benefit of employment. When such an employer then turns around and selectively refuses to fulfill that responsibility to its woman employees, because it disapproves of their personal choices, is discrimination.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

lecoal offices of the Department of Health have been distributing free condoms for years, so why are they so dead-set on forcing the Church to violate its owns principles? Makes one wonder what their true goal is.

I would guess it's health. *shrug*

[Elminster_Amaur]

Last time I checked, a Catholic orgnization respecting both canon law and 2000 years of Catholic teaching was not forcing its religion on others.

I like how you Catholics accept everything that gets spoon-fed to you by the Vatican. First off, it's only been about 1000 years, at most, since Catholic teaching started calling abortion and birth-control a sin. You want to know why? Because until that time, they had a fairly accurate (not saying entirely accurate) view of how the fetus progressed, and they did not think that it had a soul until it took human form. They called that point, ensoulment, and even though they had a slightly off view of WHEN in pregnancy that occured, they did realize that until the fetus was at least vaguely human in form (i.e. no tail, head has shrunk to about 1/4 - 1/6 body mass, 2 arms, 2 legs, etc.), it was not murder and "did not raise any moral concerns." I don't remember the exact date, but at some point, someone (not a scientist) came up to the church leaders and gave them this crackpot theory that the fetus is a tiny man-shaped being from even before consception, and the church got concerned and decided to ban abortions. In the later 1800s, the church was starting to die, so, in order to protect itself, it made the Pope infallible. Look at that! The Pope's infallibility started in the late 1800s, and yet most catholics I speak to would say that the Pope has ALWAYS been infallible, just like they say that abortion has ALWAYS been a sin. And, since we're on the subject of providing evidence, which you seem unwilling to ever do, I'm linking some of my own.

Infallibilty of the Pope
Family PlanningI've quoted the passages that may interest you the most.

Even the earliest Christian Church, the progenitors of Roman Catholicism today, did not view all abortions as a crime. Indeed, many of the early church fathers -- and I emphasize that gender -- did not believe that abortion raised any substantial moral questions until the moment of ensoulment, which many scholars believe was 30 days after the conception of a male and 60 days after the conception of a female. But the idea of fundamentalist Christian and Catholic doctrine indicating that abortion is murder is a theological accretion. It's not something that is an imperative of scripture.

Catholics for a Free Choice
Amazing that there's a Catholic Website denouncing the Vatican's stand on the matter, hmm?

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Looks like the British hottie could be facing three years in prison for....:

Drinking wine
Kissing her husband
Sitting on a couch
Wearing leather sandals


Read about it here.

If stuff like that gets you into prison, I'm never going to India. I doubt they'd be able to prove it was 'offending with malicious intent' though, so its unlikely she'll go to prison. And I don't think she should.