Announcement

**Jon Miller** · February 9, 2012, 17:56

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."

Something went wrong | The Economist

http://www.economist.com/comment/1251982#comment-1251982

No one is stopping Z from having Y coverage.

JM

**Aeson** · February 9, 2012, 18:11

Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post

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, 18:24

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, 18:40

Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post

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, 18:59

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

And should.

JM

**Aeson** · February 9, 2012, 19:06

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, 19:12

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, 19:13

Originally posted by Aeson View Post

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.

**giblets** · February 9, 2012, 19:14

Originally posted by OzzyKP View Post

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.

**giblets** · February 9, 2012, 19:17

Originally posted by Guynemer View Post

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

This.

**Jon Miller** · February 9, 2012, 19:18

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

**giblets** · February 9, 2012, 19:27

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, 19:29

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, 19:31

Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post

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, 19:48

Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post

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.

Announcement

Seriously, GOP? Really?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment