On religious freedom

Senate judiciary committee endorses controversial contraceptive bill

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

“My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko said. “All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.”

http://www.statepress.com/2012/03/12...aceptive-bill/

I can see a lot of strikes popping up all over the Arizona Tradeing Estates...what a narrow minded people the Arizona senate are. I would like to see this tried in a Country in the free world....whoops...they are part of the free world...Or is the free world just those nasty European Countries the American Bankers moan about?...LMFAO

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.

---

All this bill does is to allow an employer to force his religious beliefs onto his employees. Which is a violation of the Constitution!

And again, the primary target of this bill is the reproductive activities of women. They MUST not be allowed to have control of their own bodies. Why, if they aren't FORCED to have children, the Churches will run out of little minds and bodies to control and use. (And abuse.)

I would love to see every woman in these states tell their husbands to fuck off when they're looking for some loving. I would also love to see someone with the guts to put in mandatory, state-paid genetic testing to determine the father of every child, so they can force the father to pay support.

Assholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

I would like to see this tried in a Country in the free world....

---

Contraceptives aren't covered by the mandatory health insurance in Switzerland. Although its exclusion isn't based (at least not officially) on religious grounds. But at least the day-after pill is cheap and abortions are covered.

I wonder, how many of those companies which WON'T cover contraceptives, WOULD cover the male ED pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc.)?

A campaign funded by the religious right has effectively rewritten the constitutional separation of church and state in education:

"Over the past 20 years, legal advocacy groups of the religious right – a collection of entities that now command budgets totaling over $100m per year – have been pushing a new legal theory, one that has taken hold of some parts of the popular imagination and that has even been enshrined in recent judicial rulings. The essence of the theory is that religion isn't religion, after all; it's really just speech from a religious viewpoint. Borrowing from the rhetoric of the civil rights movements, the advocates of the new theory cry "discrimination" in the face of every attempt to treat religion as something different from any other kind of speech."

"The fundamental problem with the claim that religion is just another form of speech is that it just isn't true. Religion is special; and notwithstanding the new legal theory, our legal and constitutional system rightfully continues to recognize it as such. Thanks to the free exercise clause, religious groups are allowed to hire and fire people and select their members without regard to the laws that constrain other employers and groups. They receive significant tax benefits."

"More to the point, religious groups are permitted to preach the kinds of doctrines – that homosexuality is an abomination, for example – for which non-religious groups would be excluded from schools and other government institutions. The cumulative effect of the court decisions based on the new legal theory is to force schools and other institutions to provide state-subsidized platforms for the dissemination of religious beliefs."

"The Child Evangelism Fellowship is represented at their national conventions by movement leaders who rail against the "homosexual agenda" and promote creationism. One keynote speaker has condemned interfaith marriage, which he referred to as "interracial marriage". The leaders of the Alliance Defense Fund and the Liberty Counsel – the legal juggernauts that have made the new legal theory possible – have produced books whose titles say it all: The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, and Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk."

"They are perfectly entitled to their religion, of course. They are also, by virtue of recent court decisions, now entitled to promote this religion through America's public schools."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lising-schools

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I wonder, how many of those companies which WON'T cover contraceptives, WOULD cover the male ED pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc.)?

---

Interesting question :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

[I]Senate judiciary committee endorses controversial contraceptive bill
http://www.statepress.com/2012/03/12...aceptive-bill/

---

So far as a foreigner can judge, my guess is that this is a hat on a stick, meant to be shot off. The lawmakers must have legal advisors to tell them that this will never survive judicial review: so the object is to be able to go back to their voters and tell them that they did their best, but the godless tyrants of Washington overruled them. From their point of view, tha'ts a win-win: they get the kudos for having passed a popular law, without (as so often happens with such laws) having to cope with the consequences of its being unworkable in practice.

In the matter of employer's insurance covering contraceptives, a lawsuit has now been brought against the Obama administration on behalf of a private employer, as opposed to the previous suits by religious organisations.

"The plaintiffs are Frank R. O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC (OIH), a holding company based in St. Louis, Missouri. OIH operates a number of businesses that explore, mine and process refractory and ceramic raw materials.

O’Brien is a Catholic and claims his religious beliefs provide the framework for the operation of his business including a mission to “make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.”

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/first-la...#ixzz1pSrTYxyr

The problem here is that the reason to sue is very flimsy, basically it means 'I do not like the idea.' If you can sue on that basis and win, then, as I see it, you cannot have a system with a goverment making laws, it would be cluttered up in lawsuits by anyone who did not like the laws on any grounds whatsoever.

Furthermore - religion is very important to a great many people, so are ethics, ideologies, political convictions and other stuff to a great many other people. You cannot single out religion as the constant reason to have your way in a society with so many different serious convictions of all kinds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

You cannot single out religion as the constant reason to have your way in a society with so many different serious convictions of all kinds.

---

This is the core of the problem, thir. For so many years - centuries! - religious groups have been living in a state of privilege, allowed to do things that others could not. Now, when we are beginning to push back, and telling them that they are no better than anyone else, they scream they are being persecuted. To these people, NOT being allowed to persecute gays, women, atheists, other religions, etc., is considered persecution!

It's time that religions were relegated to the churches where they belong and no longer given special privileges. That's happening in many places, already. But it isn't happening easily, nor fast enough. Churches should be subject to the laws of the land, and not making those laws.

lol And on the eighth day the lord said: "let there be a pleasing offering of refractory and ceramic raw materials that enrich thy families and society” ? Blink blink.

I freely admit that our legal system here in the States is by no means perfect...nor is the system in any other country that I am aware of.

That being said, I think it is preposterous to involve the state or business or religious groups, or any other group associations with having to share the cost or outright pay for things like birth control (which is very very cheap anyway) or abortions or cosmetic surgery (face lifts boob jobs gastric bypass etc) for other than corrective measure like in the case of dis-figuration from car accidents and the like.

As for freedom of speech...well its freedom of speech. It should be protected regardless of it's content...that includes everything from porn to religion.

Additionally imho: money, advertising, lobbying (paying politicians off to get the vote you want) and any and all kinds inequality generating modifiers to such freedoms of speech should all be restricted, transparent and or deleted from protection under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

This is the core of the problem, thir. For so many years - centuries! - religious groups have been living in a state of privilege, allowed to do things that others could not.

Only because the "leaders" of any given state promoted a particular religion above the others.


Now, when we are beginning to push back, and telling them that they are no better than anyone else, they scream they are being persecuted.

Coughs...thats pretty much been happening in one form or another since written history and is nothing new.

To these people, NOT being allowed to persecute gays, women, atheists, other religions, etc., is considered persecution!

Just like not being able to piss all over all religions is persecution too an atheist? Oh how the pot doth love to call the kettle black huh?

It's time that religions were relegated to the churches where they belong and no longer given special privileges. That's happening in many places, already. But it isn't happening easily, nor fast enough. Churches should be subject to the laws of the land, and not making those laws.

---

They like any other group here the United States however is legally allowed to express their freedom of speech. You cant have it both ways Thorne. You can't tell religions too shut up while still allowing atheism (or any other group polity) a voice. We either have freedom of speech or we do not, there is no middle ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Only because the "leaders" of any given state promoted a particular religion above the others.

---

Which is why the founders of the US Constitution ensured a separation of Church and State, a condition which Christians in the US are fighting like mad to change.

Quote:

---

Just like not being able to piss all over all religions is persecution too an atheist? Oh how the pot doth love to call the kettle black huh?

---

No one is denying them the right to SAY what they want about others, nor is anyone trying to force them to accept those others into their exclusive clubs. We are only saying that they do NOT have the right to assault those others, or to promote attacks upon them, or to publicly attack individuals because of their lifestyles. Just like I do not attack individuals who might believe in a certain god or gods, I only attack the religious organization which spouts inanity and hatred. I'm not saying that churches should be forced to accept gay marriages, for example, or even that they must accept gays into their congregations. I'm only saying that the churches do NOT have the right to lie about those who are gay, or to try to deny gays their rights. And apparently, that means I'm persecuting the church.

Quote:

---

You can't tell religions too shut up while still allowing atheism (or any other group polity) a voice. We either have freedom of speech or we do not, there is no middle ground.

---

One of the requirements for tax-free status of religious organizations is that they not engage in political discourse from the pulpit. Sure, the preacher can have his political opinions, and he can speak them freely OUTSIDE of the church. But INSIDE the church, as a church official, he is not permitted to declaim political views. No one enforces that law, however, and there have been instances of preachers literally threatening their congregations with hellfire if they don't vote the way he tells them to. THAT is wrong, and should cost that church its tax-free status. But I guess THAT'S persecuting them, too.

My solution is to remove the tax-free status from ALL religions, and only give them deductions for actual charities they support. And there shouldn't be a tax deduction for individuals who donate to churches. Let them donate to the charities themselves. I can't get a deduction for joining Sam's Club. Why should someone get a deduction for joining Liars for Jesus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Which is why the founders of the US Constitution ensured a separation of Church and State, a condition which Christians in the US are fighting like mad to change.

All the framers wanted was to avoid having a state sanctioned church of some kind and to keep the state from backing any one religion over another and to allow anyone to worship whatever they wanted.


No one is denying them the right to SAY what they want about others, nor is anyone trying to force them to accept those others into their exclusive clubs.

Really? Then why do they spend so much time trying to do that very thing?

We are only saying that they do NOT have the right to assault those others, or to promote attacks upon them, or to publicly attack individuals because of their lifestyles.

Whats an attack? A verbal attack like the ones you use against them?

Just like I do not attack individuals who might believe in a certain god or gods, I only attack the religious organization which spouts inanity and hatred.

You attack individuals every time when you attack the group they are part of and you know it.

I'm not saying that churches should be forced to accept gay marriages, (yet you have) for example, or even that they must accept gays into their congregations. I agree that a group should be allowed to want it's members to conform to its own internal policies so long as they are breaking no laws. I'm only saying that the churches do NOT have the right to lie (um actually they do have the right to free speech just like the rest of us, they can lie about another group etc as much as you do...which includes saying whatever for the most part even when its not true IE: including lies...slander on the other hand and where the legal line lays is a whole different matter.) about those who are gay, or to try to deny gays their rights. And apparently, that means I'm persecuting the church.

Persecution? naw your just excising your right to lie (coughs free speech) about them and deny their rights.


One of the requirements for tax-free status of religious organizations is that they not engage in political discourse from the pulpit.

Really? I would love to see where that is in the Constitution.

Sure, the preacher can have his political opinions, and he can speak them freely OUTSIDE of the church. But INSIDE the church, as a church official, he is not permitted to declaim political views.

According to whom?

No one enforces that law, however, and there have been instances of preachers literally threatening their congregations with hellfire if they don't vote the way he tells them to. THAT is wrong, and should cost that church its tax-free status. But I guess THAT'S persecuting them, too.

Still would love to see this law.

My solution is to remove the tax-free status from ALL religions, and only give them deductions for actual charities they support. And there shouldn't be a tax deduction for individuals who donate to churches. Let them donate to the charities themselves. I can't get a deduction for joining Sam's Club. Why should someone get a deduction for joining Liars for Jesus?

---

Tax free status must then be removed from all groups of every kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Tax free status must then be removed from all groups of every kind.

---

Sounds like a brilliant idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Still would love to see this law.

---

Look at this page.

My statements above may be a little broad, as far as this explanation goes, but the idea is the same. Technically, as I read it, all of the campaigning that the Mormon Church did for Prop 8 in California should have cost them their tax-free status. Just one example.

Quote:

---

Tax free status must then be removed from all groups of every kind.

---

I can agree with that. I've never quite been able to figure out why churches and charities should NOT pay taxes, at least on those portions of the money they collect which does not get used to actually do charity work.

Quote:

---

(um actually they do have the right to free speech just like the rest of us, they can lie about another group etc as much as you do...which includes saying whatever for the most part even when its not true IE: including lies...slander on the other hand and where the legal line lays is a whole different matter.)

---

There are, as you are well aware, restrictions on free speech. One cannot say anything which comes to mind about another person, or group of people, unless one has some semblance of evidence to back up those statements. When I, and others, make claims about the lies told by religious organizations, we are basing those comments on actual lies told by religious leaders! I can, for example, claim that religious organizations promote mythology because the stories which they preach are indistinguishable from those stories which we all recognize as myths. THEY may believe them to be true, but without evidence there is no reason anyone else MUST believe them to be true. Their freedom of speech allows them to preach these myths in their churches and schools: it does NOT give them the right to FORCE those who don't believe to teach them as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

My statements above may be a little broad, as far as this explanation goes, but the idea is the same.

Broad? lol Big stretch between preaching a political view from the pulpit (which according to 501 is fine and perfectly allowable as free speech btw) and contributing money via your religious organization directly to a campaign.

Technically, as I read it, all of the campaigning that the Mormon Church did for Prop 8 in California should have cost them their tax-free status. Just one example.

Depends...giving money to a super pack may or may not be defined in the same fashion as giving it directly to a campaign...which if I recall correctly is the same loophole being exploited by big business to the same ends.

I can agree with that. I've never quite been able to figure out why churches and charities should NOT pay taxes, at least on those portions of the money they collect which does not get used to actually do charity work.

Or Corporations, Nazi groups, the KKK, biker gangs or atheist clubs or any groups etc etc.


There are, as you are well aware, restrictions on free speech.

Yep they are clearly stipulated in the constitution too.

One cannot say anything which comes to mind about another person, or group of people, unless one has some semblance of evidence to back up those statements.

They can a do on TV all the time. Additionally under the guise of both fiction and educational texts or philosophical pamphlets, one can even say those things which one couldn't say publicly otherwise if they addressed an individual. Which if memory serves it is pretty much anything including the lies told about Jews by Nazi groups. Including lies told by certain Civil War historical groups to promote a pro southern basis for the war that doesn't involve slavery etc. Short of inciting a riot by yelling fire in a movie theater or direct slander which must be proven in a court or making certain treasonous statements its all free game.

When I, and others, make claims about the lies told by religious organizations, we are basing those comments on actual lies told by religious leaders!

So you say. Though given the amount of sophistry (basically truth twisting) you use on this subject I am a bit skeptical.

I can, for example, claim that religious organizations promote mythology because the stories which they preach are indistinguishable from those stories which we all recognize as myths. THEY may believe them to be true, but without evidence there is no reason anyone else MUST believe them to be true. Their freedom of speech allows them to preach these myths in their churches and schools: it does NOT give them the right to FORCE those who don't believe to teach them as well.

---

Just like I can say all atheists are misguided asshats who don't practice what they preach and often act just as zealously as any religious fanatic...doesn't make it true necessarily but I can say it legally all the same.

Even from the pulpit of a church if I should so choose.

[/SIZE][/COLOR]

As for freedom of speech...well its freedom of speech. It should be protected regardless of it's content...that includes everything from porn to religion.

Additionally imho: money, advertising, lobbying (paying politicians off to get the vote you want) and any and all kinds inequality generating modifiers to such freedoms of speech should all be restricted, transparent and or deleted from protection under the law.[/QUOTE]

hear hear!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

They like any other group here the United States however is legally allowed to express their freedom of speech. You cant have it both ways Thorne. You can't tell religions too shut up while still allowing atheism (or any other group polity) a voice. We either have freedom of speech or we do not, there is no middle ground.

---

In truth there should be freedom of speech for all, or the concept has no meaning. But we are talking about enforcing ideas on other people, which is an entirely different thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

One of the requirements for tax-free status of religious organizations is that they not engage in political discourse from the pulpit.

---

Really? Seriously???

Quote:

---

My solution is to remove the tax-free status from ALL religions, and only give them deductions for actual charities they support. And there shouldn't be a tax deduction for individuals who donate to churches. Let them donate to the charities themselves.

---

Charities are free of taxes, aren't they? I agree they should be the only ones, or all organisations could equally claim tax-dedcutions by virtue of being organisations, or very convinced people.