Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 42

Thread: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

  1. #10
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    Did I miss the portion of the constitution where the government had the right to tell churches or church entities what they can do. Did I also miss the mandate that all individuals adhere to the catholic religion. Did I also miss the mandate that the only insurance, college or hospital a person can choose to use must be catholic. Here is an idea, IF YOU DONT LIKE THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THESE INSTITUTIONS THEN DONT USE THEM, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. truly exercise your freedom of religion and choose another provider. We dont need more government intervention in our lives. People should feel free to stand up and make a decision on their own.

  2. #11
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    I've read the last posts of my friends Quinn and UGLY, and as usual, they make sense and I agree with a good deal of what they say. Where we differ is that while the issue of insurance coverage for birth control may be a controversial one even exclusive of the religious aspects, the idea of government dictating what a hospital can or cannot do is, to me, very simple. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't care what churches do in their church, but if they want to get into the hospital business, they must follow government dictated hospital rules. Hospitals have a responsibility and a duty to provide the best possible medical care, not whatever care the priest deems appropriate, and a person going to (or an unconscious person being brought by an ambulance to) any hospital has a right to expect this. If a pregnant woman's life is threatened by her pregnancy and only an abortion will save her, the decision of whose life to save must be determined by the mother, accepted medical ethics and civil law. It is totally inappropriate for the religious affiliation of the hospital to enter into the decision.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  3. #12

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    I've read the last posts of my friends Quinn and UGLY, and as usual, they make sense and I agree with a good deal of what they say. Where we differ is that while the issue of insurance coverage for birth control may be a controversial one even exclusive of the religious aspects, the idea of government dictating what a hospital can or cannot do is, to me, very simple. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't care what churches do in their church, but if they want to get into the hospital business, they must follow government dictated hospital rules. Hospitals have a responsibility and a duty to provide the best possible medical care, not whatever care the priest deems appropriate, and a person going to (or an unconscious person being brought by an ambulance to) any hospital has a right to expect this. If a pregnant woman's life is threatened by her pregnancy and only an abortion will save her, the decision of whose life to save must be determined by the mother, accepted medical ethics and civil law. It is totally inappropriate for the religious affiliation of the hospital to enter into the decision.
    I may see the crux of your problem, Spider. To me it is like private and public colleges. I will have to do more research on whether the catholic based hospitals take federal money, but I know the private colleges like Notre Dame don't. So a private institution should not be held to the publicly funded policies. I will check on the hospitals though because I don't really know.

  4. #13
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    If you accept any sort of funding then the "funder" will always demand concessions from the "fundee". Whether that is legal or not is another question. It is not exactly like buying stock. Simple to me is if you don't want the influence don't take the money. If they don't take the money the government at any level should not have any say on how you right your biz within the limitations of the law.

  5. #14

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    The government is trying to get this through by saying that all women need and deserve this service. Yet they don't demand sun block for an even bigger problem.

    Quinn, perhaps I can offer some insight into why some people consider contraception to be a much bigger consideration than simply having sex or not, and why some people would think that your analogy to sunblock would not be relevant.

    There is a strong current of American thought that believes that freedom is not merely the total of abstract legal principles, and that the legal protection of property and conscience is simply not enough to secure individual freedom. There were many that came to America, who had either or both legal property protections or were comfortable with their level of freedom of conscience. However, despite having abstract rights to own property (serfdom was dead in much of Europe by 1776, and was gone from all of Europe before we abolished slavery.) European property (especially land) was locked into the hands of a few because of yes- strong legal protections of property. There was no practical way for the poor to get access property. They had the right to, but no reasonable path.
    This issue is critical in understanding some peoples' notions of freedom. Property is not merely the measure of your hard work, it can be seen as the basis of any actual "real legal and political freedoms." If you have no property from which to support yourself, you will soon sell many of your legal and political freedoms in order to eat. If you are dependent on a landlord, or factory owner, or corporation for existence- it is very difficult to exercise any other forms of independence from their points of view. etc.. Freedom is only possible with independence, independence is only possible with a certain level of property. The property itself rather than property rights can be seen as the basis of freedom.

    Examples- The Regulator movement, Declaration of Independence complaining about the Proclamation of 1763, Free Soil Party, Lincoln's Republican Party: Thaddeus Steven's said that legal protections of ex slaves was not enough, freedom required property- 40 Acres and a Mule etc
    –“If we do not furnish them with homesteads and hedge them around with protective laws ; if we leave them to the legislation of their late masters, we had better have left them in bondage.”

    In other words, many people argue that property rights only work for people who have acquired enough property to be independent of others, and that strictly constructed property rights often have the unfortunate effect of locking some into dependence, even if they are also theoretically free to own property themselves.

    Where this comes to contraception is that many people in the 2oth century began to argue that women were "enslaved to men" not merely because of legal restrictions, or biblical/cultural norms, but that the economics/biology of the gender situation were constructed in a way that fostered it, and that public policy could help correct it. They felt if government could be used to reinforce biblical patriarchy and economic patriarchy, it could be used to alleviate it, reverse it and overcome it as well.

    These women's rights (Margaret Sanger and many others) advocates argued the thing that most restricted women's freedom was lack of access to biological knowledge and common contraceptive technology. In other words for women to be truly independent of men they needed economic independence from men, and the stumbling block was poorly timed pregnancy. If you are not materially independent, a pregnancy is going to put you into a state of dependence- often on men: your father, your husband, your boyfriend, the dole- someone will have to support you and in the process you lose your freedom.

    So, for some the concept of women's reproductive health is not merely about disease, or ensuring a good time on weekends. To some it is the only pathway for women to ever have "freedom" and independence in society. That is why sunblock is not going to be seen as an effective analogy to some. They argue that access to reproductive knowledge and education, and access to affordable contraceptive technology is the only pathway for freedom. Sunblock, though a legitimate health issue, has much less bearing on the reality of freedom, property, and independence.

    I am not sure you will accept any of their argument, but it may explain why some people are so very adamant about reproductive health issues for women- they see it as the only foundation for real freedom and independence from patriarchy.



  6. #15

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    The government trying to force them to pay such practices goes directly against the 1st amendment. The government is not allowed to force citizens to purchase or provide anything, period. It is also not allowed to force religions to change their beliefs or do things against their faith.
    The government has been forcing religions to pay for the military, against their religious beliefs/faith, since forever. Should churches/their members be able to opt out of paying taxes that go towards the military?
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  7. #16
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    The government has been forcing religions to pay for the military, against their religious beliefs/faith, since forever. Should churches/their members be able to opt out of paying taxes that go towards the military?
    Which religion is anti military? All people have to pay taxes it is up to the government what they do with the money. Unfortunately we know that the right from religion trumps the rights of the religious. When people of faith pay their taxes that go to public schools that teach against what the Church does, those of faith have no recourse other than to change to a private school. But because someone gets offended over the Pledge just one family then everything changes.

    This is just another effort to hurt the church. IF you require these institutions to change, they will reject federal funding and close or they will thrive and continue to do what they were doing, which was practicing their faith while serving the public. For all the good Church run organizations do, I dont know why people insist on attacking them. I might be wrong but I believe that churches in general give out more free medical care around the world than anyone else, they also feed the hungry and house the orphans, but because they receive federal funding to assist in these efforts they must compromise their faith. How about let them continue the good work they are doing and let them practice their faith. The church is in a no win situation, they can reject federal funding and risk closing down where they are able to provide no services and the public will demonize them, or they can sacrifice their very belief structure and risk their conscience and the faith of their believers.

    NYGriffin that was the biggest stretch I have ever seen on this forum, I applaud you for it but my gosh that was a load of crap. Quinn made a fine analogy, basically saying that if the government is forcing the free availability of items that can save your life then why stop at one just make them all free. Like water it should be free because without it we could not live and according to the constitution we have the right to life. I heard your argument for individual freedom, well you always have the freedom of choice, choose to go somewhere else. If you aren't happy with your pay at work then get another job, the same goes if you dont like the health care that your job provides, either buy your own insurance or get another job.

  8. #17
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    Oh and here are some of my thoughts on freedom, Freedom does not come in form of regulation and government internevtion. It comes from the people, and for whatever reason the people of this nation are more than happy to give up freedom in order to not have to make decisions or be accountable for themselves, we always want to blame someone else or we want the government to give us something. Well just like federal funding the more the government gives to us their is a cost and that cost is our freedom.

  9. #18

    Default Re: A few thoughts about freedom of religion and health insurance.

    Exactly! People are always wanting government to do something they can do for themselves.

    Quinn, I think we also have a fundamental difference in our views about the role of government in society.

    I believe that human existence has a couple of central paradoxes. One important one is the fact that we are both individuals and independent and social and interdependent. We are individual citizens, but always citizens of something bigger.

    As individuals we should always standup for each others' individual choices of conscience, up to a point.
    As citizens, we should bind together to accomplish our collective hopes, and to bind together to protect our selves from common ills, up to a point.

    The basic outlines of this:

    As for our hopes- I think the government does need to continue to invest in basic infrastructure. That is the basis of individual economic growth- education, transportation, communication, coordinated energy policy and research for research sake- so many breakthroughs in the modern era require more than profit motive to get off the ground. With out govt. initiative in military, space and university research- there is no Steve Jobs or Zuckerburg.

    As for our fears- there are certain ills of the world that effect us as a group, regardless of our individual merit or responsibility. There are bad things that happen to us, more or less randomly and those things we should bind together in common cause. In my opinion these ills are:

    Invasion, Crime, Fire and other Natural Disasters, Illness and disease.

    In other words we should never tell people in these areas to "do for themselves." In all of these areas, it has been tried in the past and frankly has been mostly abandoned to real and sustained human progress through coordinated action.

    We are no longer peasants armed with pitch forks hoping that various kings' private armies leave you alone, we train and equip a people's army that serves we the people. Invasion effects all regardless of merit, all should contribute to defense regardless where the invasion comes. We should never privatize this. "Those bombers are headed to homes without Anti-Aircraft riders, let them pass." That is not acceptable.

    Crime effects all regardless of merit, and we contribute to basic protection, regardless of who is victimized. Those who desire are free to purchase more security above and beyond the basic protection. "Sir, we can not respond to your burglary because you have been previously burgled. It a pre-existing vulnerability." That is not acceptable.

    Fire and natural disaster effects many people, regardless of merit, and we commit to the common alleviation of these ills regardless who is effected. Those who want more protection are free to purchase more on the open market. "I am sorry folks we thought your house was within our network of protected homes. You are going to have to get a fire engine from your own network to put out your fire." That iss unacceptable.

    Illness effects people regardless of individual merit, and I believe we should bind together on that issue as well. Those who want more than the basic level of community protection are still free to purchase more for themselves. No freedom is lost with universal healthcare, just like no freedom is lost with universal common defense, police, or fire protection.
    Until we learn the lessons that these other areas have taught us, we will suffer from all the inefficiency, inequality, insensitivity, poor outcomes, bloated costs and inhumanity that are beloved "private corporations" can force down our throats.

    Government initiative and coordination on matters of basic economic infrastructure such as research, education, transportation and energy development and distribution because it benefits all and is what makes private success possible.

    Government paid soldiers, policemen, firemen, and doctors because they protect us from what we should never be left to do for ourselves. We can do all of that ourselves- but progress dictates that we shouldn't.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •