On religious freedom

[thir]

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/

[IAN 2411]

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

[lucy]

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.

[Thorne]

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.

[Thorne]

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

[thir]

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

[thir]

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.

[Thorne]

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.

[denuseri]

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.

[thir]

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

Interesting question :-)

[leo9]

[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.

[denuseri]

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.

[thir]

[/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!!