Seriously, GOP? Really?

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 16:56

Here is from the comments of the economist:

""I worry about setting a precedent"

Bingo. Most of these morality, government, religion, etc. boil down to this: setting a precedent - because what is morality to some is immorality to others, so for those thinking is ok to simply violate a very specific constitutional issue, in the name of modernity or womens rights or whatever, then the same people will not have a moral standing when another government try to do the same in areas they disagree with.

I personally think the risks involved in this matter (like curtailing the freedom of religious practices), by far outweight the benefits of it (providing contraception via religious entities that oppose it),specially when the same services can be obtained by other sources."
http://www.economist.com/comment/125...omment-1251982

No one is stopping Z from having Y coverage.

JM

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 17:11

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

No one is stopping Z from having Y coverage.

They are mandating that X provide Y, and allowing only Z to not provide Y. The problem isn't that they aren't allowing sorta-Z to not provide Y. The problem is either that they are mandating Y for all non-Z, or that they are allowing Z to not provide Y.

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 17:24

The issue is that mandating Y is not important enough to invalidate peoples freedom of conscience.

Whether that means that Y should not be mandated, or that Z is excluded, is up to you.

If Y were "not baby raping" I would agree with you...

By the way, the US had had lots of cases of Z being excluded in the past, and should in the future. It is the way you do things when society in general thinks something should be done, but recognizes that it isn't important enough to invalidate people's rights to freedom of conscience.

Sort of like conscientious objectors.

If you want to think about it this way, we have decided that freedom of conscience is a much more important right than freedom to do whatever you want.

JM

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 17:40

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

The issue is that mandating Y is not important enough to invalidate peoples freedom of conscience.

No, that issue has already been decided and isn't what is being discussed.

Now you are simply arguing that one group which does not want to provide Y to their employees should be allowed not to, while other groups who do not want to provide Y must do so.

If Y were "not baby raping" I would agree with you...

You seem to be confused as to what my position is. I would say providing contraception coverage (or any insurance for that matter) for employees shouldn't be mandated to any employer.

By the way, the US had had lots of cases of Z being excluded in the past, and should in the future. It is the way you do things when society in general thinks something should be done, but recognizes that it isn't important enough to invalidate people's rights.

No it should never be done.

The groups who believe Z should be done would do it anyways. The only effect of such an absurd arrangement is to force some groups who believe Z shouldn't be done to do it anyways, while allowing others who believe Z shouldn't be done to not do it.

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 17:59

We value "I believe it is wrong" more than "I don't want to do it".

And should.

JM

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 18:06

No. You are comparing an evaluation (believe it is wrong) to an action (or lack of it). A valid comparison would be between the reasons for the desired lack of action in both regards. By pretending the "secular" reasons do not exist you are discriminating against people who base their beliefs of what is best to do on something other than God.

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 18:12

For instance, I think abortion is a terrible thing and would never want to pay for one. (I wouldn't mind paying for contraception or even a day after pill. I also do not support forcing women not to have abortions, just to be clear.) However, my abhorrence of abortion is not based on any sort of accepted religious beliefs, so you would say that if government saw fit to force me to pay that I should have to because I just "don't want to", while you (I'm assuming you're pro life) wouldn't have to pay because your beliefs are based on religion.

It is a very hypocritical stance.

Guynemer · February 9, 2012, 18:13

Originally Posted by Aeson

The real problem here is government is mandating that insurance be provided, but not actually providing it. It's a stupid compromise that's the worst of both worlds.

By leagues, this is the smartest thing posted since this particular threadjack began.

This discussion is silly. Catholics are already providing birth control for millions of people simply by paying taxes. I fail to understand how this is so substantively different.

gribbler · February 9, 2012, 18:14

Originally Posted by OzzyKP

http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/01/...rapy-for-gays/

Wouldn't be any different from the government deciding to directly fund conversion therapy. I'd think it's stupid but it's no more an assault on individual freedom than any other government project.

gribbler · February 9, 2012, 18:17

Originally Posted by Guynemer

That is a complete line of bullshit, DD. I was forced to violate my conscience by paying for preemptive wars and assassinations this past decade.

This.

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 18:18

Where did I say that the only applicable spaces for freedom of conscience was religious ones?

I am in favor of secular freedom of conscience too.

I believe that there are conscientious objectors who are not religious and defend their rights. Just like I defend the rights of those who want to be able to be able to work on Sunday.

Taxes are a different issue Guy, quit trying to relate apples and asteroids.

JM

gribbler · February 9, 2012, 18:27

If the government decides to fund something you consider morally reprehensible then your taxes go up to pay for it. If you're against making people pay for something they claim to find morally objectionable, as a matter of principle, then you must be some kind of hardcore libertarian that wants all government spending to be paid for by voluntary contributions and nothing more.

Dinner · February 9, 2012, 18:29

It looks like Imran was right and Obama is now ready to give in to Republicans again on the birth control issue. I swear if given a chance he'd compromise with himself until he ends up with lame legislation.

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 18:31

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

Where did I say that the only applicable spaces for freedom of conscience was religious ones?

It is apparent from your arguments that you discount some forms of freedom of conscience. You support laws which give religions exemptions that others cannot have. Then you go so far as to paint these others as "just not wanting to", stripping them of their "conscience" entirely.

Guynemer · February 9, 2012, 18:48

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

Taxes are a different issue Guy, quit trying to relate apples and asteroids.

JM

Hardly. Government-mandated healthcare is, for all intents and purposes, a tax, just as all government mandates are.

Thorn · February 9, 2012, 18:49

Originally Posted by Guynemer

By leagues, this is the smartest thing posted since this particular threadjack began.
This discussion is silly. Catholics are already providing birth control for millions of people simply by paying taxes. I fail to understand how this is so substantively different.

I said that about mandatory health insurance, similar to drivers licenses, but nobody listens to me.........

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 18:51

Originally Posted by Aeson

It is apparent from your arguments that you discount some forms of freedom of conscience. You support laws which give religions exemptions that others cannot have. Then you go so far as to paint these others as "just not wanting to", stripping them of their "conscience" entirely.

Wrong.

I can say "I don't want to go fight in the war" and have it be a lot different than "fighting in wars is wrong, I don't want to fight in the war".

The reason for things matter. Always has, should in the future too.

I think that atheists can believe that abortion is wrong or birth control is wrong or so on too.

JM

Krill · February 9, 2012, 18:54

Still gotta fight though...

Thorn · February 9, 2012, 18:55

Here's an idea, I believe in the culture of death, people cause suffering therefore to remove suffering people must die, please join me with the human extinction movement.

Before anyone suggests me be the first volunteer, i never claimed to be human.

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 18:56

Originally Posted by gribbler

If the government decides to fund something you consider morally reprehensible then your taxes go up to pay for it. If you're against making people pay for something they claim to find morally objectionable, as a matter of principle, then you must be some kind of hardcore libertarian that wants all government spending to be paid for by voluntary contributions and nothing more.

I haven't bought any Raptors. The federal government has. The federal government is an entity. Just like the hospital/etc.

And I do regard taxation to be important enough to invalidate people's freedom of conscience, although I know some disagree.

There were a number of denominations (maybe my own) who had members refused to pay taxes during WW1 over pacifism.

JM

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 18:57

Originally Posted by Krill

Still gotta fight though...

Actually, no.

Not for the second.

It is a lot easier to prove for certain religious denominations (see Quakers) than for other groups though.

JM

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 18:58

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

I can say "I don't want to go fight in the war" and have it be a lot different than "fighting in wars is wrong, I don't want to fight in the war".

The reason for things matter. Always has, should in the future too.

Yet you are denying that the reasons even exist with your comparisons. Then you are falling into the same trap you're pointing out by pretending your beliefs about the value of something override everyone else's beliefs in the value of it, and thus it's ok to treat some people differently than others simply because of what organization they belong to.

I think that atheists can believe that abortion is wrong or birth control is wrong or so on too.

Yet you are supporting the types of laws which have historically denied them the same rights as religious organizations. (And in this specific case would too, even if you had your way.)

gribbler · February 9, 2012, 18:59

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

I haven't bought any Raptors. The federal government has. The federal government is an entity. Just like the hospital/etc.

And I do regard taxation to be important enough to invalidate people's freedom of conscience, although I know some disagree.

There were a number of denominations (maybe my own) who had members refused to pay taxes during WW1 over pacifism.

JM

Okay, if you're saying that violating someone's freedom of conscience is okay if it's for something really important then at least you're being consistent.

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 19:00

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

Actually, no.

Not for the second.

It is a lot easier to prove for certain religious denominations (see Quakers) than for other groups though.

It's ridiculous. If I don't believe in killing people, I have to fight. If a person from X religion doesn't believe in killing people, then it's ok. Complete hypocrisy in every possible way. Rather than separating church and state, you are creating a state recognized church (in this specific regard) and favoring only those people who belong to it.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2012, 19:13

Originally Posted by Guynemer

Hardly. Government-mandated healthcare is, for all intents and purposes, a tax, just as all government mandates are.

Indirect vs. Direct, though.

And I realized another problem. I work for the Department of Labor agency that investigates Health Plans and determines whether they are in compliance with the law. This includes any HHS stuff as well. We have NEVER been allowed to investigate a religious-affiliated hospital (or state & local government). Ever. So how in the world would this be enforced?

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 19:22

Originally Posted by gribbler

Okay, if you're saying that violating someone's freedom of conscience is okay if it's for something really important then at least you're being consistent.

If you believe in human sacrifice I definitely favor violating your action on your freedom of conscience.

I am remembering another conversation, you have difficulty understanding the difference between the action based freedom of conscience and the freedom of conscience.

I don't think it is ever ok to violate someone's freedom of conscience.

I was referring to the action part.

JM

Jon Miller · February 9, 2012, 19:24

Originally Posted by Aeson

If I don't believe in killing people, I have to fight.

Wrong.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).
http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

Please, research a bit.

JM

gribbler · February 9, 2012, 19:28

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

If you believe in human sacrifice I definitely favor violating your action on your freedom of conscience.

I am remembering another conversation, you have difficulty understanding the difference between the action based freedom of conscience and the freedom of conscience.

I don't think it is ever ok to violate someone's freedom of conscience.

I was referring to the action part.

JM

Which one of those is forcing someone to pay for things? I certainly have difficulty understanding your comparison between not wanting to pay taxes and wanting to sacrifice humans. I think it makes more sense to compare forcing someone to pay taxes for things they don't want to forcing someone to pay for condoms they don't want people to use.

Uncle Sparky · February 9, 2012, 19:34

Originally Posted by Imran Siddiqui

Indirect vs. Direct, though.

And I realized another problem. I work for the Department of Labor agency that investigates Health Plans and determines whether they are in compliance with the law. This includes any HHS stuff as well. We have NEVER been allowed to investigate a religious-affiliated hospital (or state & local government). Ever. So how in the world would this be enforced?

So if an employee filed a complaint, you'd be unallowed to investigate?

Aeson · February 9, 2012, 20:18

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

Wrong.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).
http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

Please, research a bit.

JM

What you are saying here is that you support CO's being drafted and having to fight in Vietnam if they would have fought against Nazis in WWII. And this is supposed to show that you are supportive of CO's how?

Yet it's some unbearable burden for hospitals to have to pay for their employees health plans even though it's the same health plan every other hospital has to pay for.