The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[LOLtron]

The current debate of the provision of birth control by religious employers was met with glee by Republicans at CPAC, the right's Comic Con. Finally something they can all rally around. Finally something to unify a divided field. But maybe this isn't blessing it first appears to be, at least not for them.While it does give them common cause with one another, at highlights the degree to which party activists are out of step with most Americans. I don't think I've read an article on the condemnation of the Catholic Bishops, for example, that didn't also point out that 98 percent of American Catholics ignore their leadership and practice birth control.

The sight of the right lining up against the reproductive freedom of women is also a boost for Obama. Christopher Hitchen's wrote an expose on Bill Clinton called No One Left To Lie To, which detailed his abandonment of each and every one of his values and those of his supporters in the name of political expediency. There was really no one he wasn't willing to throw under a bus to avoid a bad headline. Except one group. He consistently favoured abortion rights activists against the religious right, a group that was then growing in power and influence. As a result he gained the support of many who were otherwise unhappy with his administration and questioned many of his decisions and policies. It was him or turning the clock back on Roe V. Wade and many other gains. Obama came in on a wave of optimism and he has frequently done things--or failed to do things--souring those early supporters. But for every Republican gleely denouncing the President there were countless people watching them, thinking they had better get to work to ensure none of them come near the White House.

Putting another barrier between the Republican party of the independents and moderates they near to win, and rallying support for the White House. A win-win for Obama.

Originally Pubished at: David Bird



http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/blogs/david-birds-blog/18295-win-win-for-obama.html/

[Cat-Scratch]

Slap fight has begun!

[Spidey-Man]

Use of birth control isn’t the issue. I use birth control

Religious liberty is the issue. I oppose the president on this because it was a tyrannical thing to do and completely wrong and offensive to the idea of an insitutution practicing its faith as it sees fit. Never before in my lifetime has religious liberty been so curtailed by what was being proposed.

However, Im not that upset with the compromise. So it’s moot as far as I am concerned.

[Eli Katz]

Interesting points:

I’ve been reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in “Employment Division v. Smith,” a 1990 case in which the Supreme Court pretty much settled the question of whether the federal government can require or outlaw actions that might bump up against religious beliefs. The decision makes it clear that the Catholic bishops have no legal or constitutional basis for their complaint.

Scalia, himself a devout and very conservative Catholic, wrote in the majority decision:

“We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

Scalia traces Supreme Court rulings on the issue back to an 1879 decision that upheld federal laws against polygamy. A member of the Mormon Church had argued that because his faith required men to marry multiple wives, polygamy was protected under the First Amendment and that Mormons could claim a religious exemption from such a law.

The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding:

“… the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. … Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

… To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Now, polygamy, human sacrifice and the Hindu practice of “sati” are admittedly rather extreme and obvious cases. However, Scalia went on to note a string of other Supreme Court cases decided to the same effect.

The most relevent to the current controversy is a a 1982 case that closely parallels the current discussion over contraception. In United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing unconstitutional in requiring an Amish employer to withhold and pay Social Security taxes for his workers even though “the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs.”

Here’s how they put it:

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

You would not need to change a single word of that paragraph to apply it to the contraceptive debate.

In his own opinion in the Smith case, Scalia wraps it up rather bluntly:

“Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.”


– Jay Bookman

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 ... in-scalia/

[Spidey-Man]

compliance with an otherwise valid law
****
dont get me started.

anyway, it's the biggest threat to religious liberty ever proposed in my lifetime

and there's a reason Obama blinked. and blinked hard.

[mrorangesoda]

I agree that this was a get for the Obama administration. Everyone knew they could have introduced the Hawaii-like compromise, but by starting out strong they acted like an administration that could actually negotiate for once.

The idea that this was curtailing religious expression is ridiculous. The government is not forcing congregants to take a birth control pill during communion or even pay for it directly, just that Catholic backed organizations provide a health care plan that does. If people with that plan don't want it, they don't have to get it (this same point is true of Catholic organizations and tax dollars...)

[Spidey-Man]

I agree that this was a get for the Obama administration. Everyone knew they could have introduced the Hawaii-like compromise, but by starting out strong they acted like an administration that could actually negotiate for once.

The idea that this was curtailing religious expression is ridiculous. The government is not forcing congregants to take a birth control pill during communion or even pay for it directly, just that Catholic backed organizations provide a health care plan that does. If people with that plan don't want it, they don't have to get it (this same point is true of Catholic organizations and tax dollars...)

Forcing a religion to provide for something it disagrees with like this is of course the very definition of curtailing religious liberty.

Obama blinked. Just deal with it. Even biden was telling him this was a disaster.

[Spidey-Man]

i think to his supporters he looks like he caved again

and to the opposition, more ammunition.

He's not going to get many votes because he took this stand, but he potentially can lose votes by taking the stand he initially did

thats why he backed down.

[pastajoe]

i think to his supporters he looks like he caved again

and to the opposition, more ammunition.

He's not going to get many votes because he took this stand, but he potentially can lose votes by taking the stand he initially did

thats why he backed down.

In case you really believe these conservative talking points and this isn't satire, a good negotiator doesn't start with where he wants to end, he starts with a position he knows the other side won't accept, and then bargains away until he gets to where he wanted to be in the first place. At the end of the day, employees still get insurance to cover birth control, Obama shows he will fight for woman's rights (he has been increasing the gap between him and Willard among women), and shows he is willing to compromise, which independents like. He wasn't going to win over conservative Catholics anyways.

And regarding the issue of religious freedom, the religious organizations are not forced to provide the insurance. But if they want to be reimbursed with federal dollars for Medicare and Medicaid covered procedures, they have to comply with federal labor and health laws, just like any other business that takes money from the government. Don't like the rules, stop taking federal dollars. They are free to follow their conscience and do so.

Or if they want to participate in the political debate over such issues, then they should give up their tax exempt status and have some skin in the game. Separation of church and state works both ways.

[Doc Jon]

oh snap...

[prozacman]

So how far are we taking exempting religion from US Law? Eye for an eye ok now? Honor killings in? Do me get to rape their wives now?

[prozacman]

What defines a religious institution that should get exemptions from US Law? Could we at the Outhouse form our own religion with commandments like "Though Shell Not Pay Taxes?"

[David Bird]

Spidey-man isn't being satirical.

When it comes to infringing on religious rights, as an avid church goer, I am very much opposed to the idea, though the issue is more complicated than the debate usually shows.

For example, churches are largely funded on government revenue expenditures. When we get a tax write off on something, the government is allowing us to spend our tax dollars as we want, rather than as they want. When we donate to a church, we get a tax write off. Effectively, the money we give, at least in part (you're never allowed to deduct all of it, unfortunately) is money that would have gone to taxes. How much control the government should have over what is technically their money is a question never asked in this debate.

Another thing that's never brought up is the fact that the separation of Church and State is a secular, not religious, idea. There is nothing in the Bible or in two thousand years of Church doctrine to support the idea that the government can't tell the churches what kind of health care to provide their employees. Paul wrote, of a government that routinely tortured and killed Christians, and had no problem with homosexuality or abortion/infanticide:

Romans 13:1-7

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

When the early church could not submit to the dictates of their government, instead of demanding to be exempted or even have their values reflected in law, they accepted the consequences, even death.

Final thought, and I brought this up in the blog post, if most Christians actually practice birth control, and they do, who's values are actually being infringed upon by this policy?

[xshane666x]

Religion and politics both sicken me. I hate election years.

[Snug]

I don't really understand this "compromise." Does the government really have the authority to demand that a company give products and/or services away for free?

Obviously, insurance companies won't be doing that. They will just raise rates somewhere else to make up for all the "free" procedures and pharmaceuticals. And certainly, pills, IUDs, and sterilizations are less expensive than sprogging.

Still, I find the notion that with the stroke of a pen, someone can wreck your entire business model, to be a bit disconcerting. Unless it involves forcing my butcher to give me free T-bones. Then I'm okay with it.