Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    05 Feb '12 09:10 / 1 edit
    "Newt Gingrich, on the campaign trail before the Florida GOP primary, called out the Barack Obama administration for engaging in a "war against religion."

    Federal officials' interpretation of the 2010 health care law violates religious freedom, he said.

    "Their decision last week that they would impose on every Catholic institution, every Jewish institution, every Protestant institution the Obamacare standard of what you have to buy as insurance is a direct violation of freedom of religion, an example of the dictatorial attitude of this administration," he told voters in Jacksonville, Fla., on Jan. 30, 2012."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/31/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-obama-administration-would-impo/

    Politifact rates this claim as mostly false.

    The question that I would like debated is this...

    Is there a difference between the religious freedom of the organization vs the religious freedom of the individual? Is it unconstitutional for ObamaCare to force an employer to give an employee an option that the employer might find objectionable?

    Note: the point of contention is that ObamaCare legislation would force religious institutions to include co-pay free preventative measures which although FDA approved include all contraception options of which some, certain religious groups find morally or ethically reprehensible.
  2. 05 Feb '12 10:14
    If mere "moral objection" of an individual or organization would suffice to repeal a law then nigh all laws would be void. For example, I have serious moral objections to the use of my tax euros for agricultural subsidies. Does that mean that I don't have to pay taxes destined for agricultural subsidies? Of course not. It means that if I care enough (and I do) I should vote for someone who wants to abolish them (and I do).
  3. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    05 Feb '12 11:28
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If mere "moral objection" of an individual or organization would suffice to repeal a law then nigh all laws would be void. For example, I have serious moral objections to the use of my tax euros for agricultural subsidies. Does that mean that I don't have to pay taxes destined for agricultural subsidies? Of course not. It means that if I care enough (and I do) I should vote for someone who wants to abolish them (and I do).
    Why this struck me as interesting, was that it paralleled the Dutch parliament banning the wearing of the burqa, which I thoroughly oppose, but in this instance, the burqa (a religious institution determining what it is not willing to provide for its employees ) being banned by Obamacare is something I totally support. So as you can imagine, I feel totally conflicted by my abject lack of philosophical consistency and I was hoping a good debate might settle the issue for me.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Feb '12 15:00
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Why this struck me as interesting, was that it paralleled the Dutch parliament banning the wearing of the burqa, which I thoroughly oppose, but in this instance, the burqa (a religious institution determining what it is not willing to provide for its employees ) being banned by Obamacare is something I totally support. So as you can imagine, I feel totally co ...[text shortened]... lack of philosophical consistency and I was hoping a good debate might settle the issue for me.
    The two are hardly comparable. IF religious institutions want to hire employees for non-religious purposes they have to obey the same type of regulations that every other employer does. These institutions are asking for preferential treatment under the law and whining about not getting it.

    By contrast, a women wearing a burqa in the Netherlands is asking not to be invidiously discriminated against by the State. See the apple, see the orange.
  5. 05 Feb '12 16:42
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The two are hardly comparable. IF religious institutions want to hire employees for non-religious purposes they have to obey the same type of regulations that every other employer does. These institutions are asking for preferential treatment under the law and whining about not getting it.

    By contrast, a women wearing a burqa in the Nether ...[text shortened]... asking not to be invidiously discriminated against by the State. See the apple, see the orange.
    The government is not violating anyone's conscience. If the employees do not use these services then the institutions won't be required to provide them. Surely no Catholics use birth control.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Feb '12 01:14
    Originally posted by kmax87
    "Newt Gingrich, on the campaign trail before the Florida GOP primary, called out the Barack Obama administration for engaging in a "war against religion."

    Federal officials' interpretation of the 2010 health care law violates religious freedom, he said.

    "Their decision last week that they would impose on every Catholic institution, every Jewish institut ...[text shortened]... options of which some, certain religious groups find morally or ethically reprehensible.
    While Newt's phraseology is hysterical hyperbole, I do not think religious organizations who employ people should be required to cover services that go against their beliefs. (I'm not saying Obamacare does this... just a general point.)
  7. 06 Feb '12 01:35
    Originally posted by sh76
    While Newt's phraseology is hysterical hyperbole, I do not think religious organizations who employ people should be required to cover services that go against their beliefs. (I'm not saying Obamacare does this... just a general point.)
    Ok, then while we're at it should Rastafarians be given an exception for marijuana?
  8. 06 Feb '12 02:02
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Ok, then while we're at it should Rastafarians be given an exception for marijuana?
    Or how about ritual sacrifice for Mayan descendants?
  9. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    06 Feb '12 08:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The two are hardly comparable. IF religious institutions want to hire employees for non-religious purposes they have to obey the same type of regulations that every other employer does. These institutions are asking for preferential treatment under the law and whining about not getting it.

    By contrast, a women wearing a burqa in the Nether ...[text shortened]... asking not to be invidiously discriminated against by the State. See the apple, see the orange.
    At this rate you will quickly become my favorite fresh food seller.

    What are non-religious purposes? Can a religious institution insist that all of its staff be members of its faith? In that instance, is it heavy handed for government to insist that they provide free co-pay options for services that their employees, if they were in good and regular standing would have no cause to access?

    I suppose what I'm really asking is, can a person subscribe to be a member of something ( in order to get the job in the first place possibly) and then claim the right to be free of that organization's dictates, where it suits them?
  10. 06 Feb '12 11:37
    There's a simple answer for the religious organizations. Stop providing health insurance at all.
  11. 06 Feb '12 12:23
    Originally posted by kmax87



    Is there a difference between the religious freedom of the organization vs the religious freedom of the individual? Is it unconstitutional for ObamaCare to force an employer to give an employee an option that the employer might find objectionable?
    In short yes; one is an autonomous individual, the other is an organization made up of any number of individuals who should not get two bites of the 'individual rights' cherry.
  12. 06 Feb '12 15:48
    Originally posted by sh76
    While Newt's phraseology is hysterical hyperbole, I do not think religious organizations who employ people should be required to cover services that go against their beliefs. (I'm not saying Obamacare does this... just a general point.)
    Does that mean you support nationalized health care?
  13. 07 Feb '12 02:40 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    While Newt's phraseology is hysterical hyperbole, I do not think religious organizations who employ people should be required to cover services that go against their beliefs. (I'm not saying Obamacare does this... just a general point.)
    Heretic!! In the US it's one size fits all now. Get with the times man. Why not join the collective group think tank so everyone can be "equal" and think mind numblingly the same?
  14. 07 Feb '12 02:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The two are hardly comparable. IF religious institutions want to hire employees for non-religious purposes they have to obey the same type of regulations that every other employer does. These institutions are asking for preferential treatment under the law and whining about not getting it.

    By contrast, a women wearing a burqa in the Nether ...[text shortened]... asking not to be invidiously discriminated against by the State. See the apple, see the orange.
    Yes, once you hire an employee then you must sell your soul to the state and do and think what they tell you to do. See, no ones rights are being violated.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Feb '12 03:15
    Originally posted by kmax87
    At this rate you will quickly become my favorite fresh food seller.

    What are non-religious purposes? Can a religious institution insist that all of its staff be members of its faith? In that instance, is it heavy handed for government to insist that they provide free co-pay options for services that their employees, if they were in good and regular standi ...[text shortened]... bly) and then claim the right to be free of that organization's dictates, where it suits them?
    Does this answer your question:

    Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B).

    http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/regulations/womensprevention.html


    If the RCC wants to open a competitor store to Wal-Marts, should it be exempt from all normal regulations of the employee-employer relationship?