Obama Admin Regulating Religious Employers

Don't have time to get too deep into it. This article addresses your concern though: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...church-have-to-dispense-birth-control/252321/

 

thanks for the link twhy.

It doesn't address my point.

The article gets into the great work done through the church, it's service to the community, and its efficiency. I agree. But the prohibition of federal money had nothing to do with the nature, quality, need, or efficiency of work done by a church.

So if we use the points you note in your #3 to exempt certain activities from being considered religious and therefore eligible federal funding when it makes sense for the community to do so....I don't think it's unreasonable to for those activities to be subject to the same employment laws as similar activities not 'owned' by a church. That's the parallel. Nothing to do with anybody being coddled, or whether the work is in the best interest of the community. I don't see how this is different than requiring any other religious business owner from providing this insurance to his employees in the conduct of non religious activities even if he morally objects to the coverage.

I suppose if the Catholic church wants to withdraw their hospitals over this that's their prerogative. But it doesn't seem a very christian thing to do.

 

Does not have to be the church as the members of the Church have the right to exercise their religion as well. Exercising religion is more than going to church. It is following the church's teaching which generally includes charitable works to those willing to accept it. Congress does not have the right to pass a law to infringe on this right without someone else's rights being violated.

The employee still gets paid. The employee still has the right to obtain alternate insurance or alternate employment.

Religious organizations for the most part are looking at dropping insurance. Whether or not you are pro-life, religious institutions for the most part are.

 

So if I start a religion and make a tenet be that we don't believe in health insurance, you think I should/would be exempt from Obama health care laws for my personal business? What about if my religion doesn't believe in taxes? Or we believe in personal drug use? Should I and my business get an exemption for that? None of these things violate anyone's rights, so an income tax law or drug law would be infringing on my religious freedom, right?

No they aren't - health reform requires them to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. They are making a big stink about it because they want it changed - which is a reasonable thing to do. But it's been something like 2 days - no organization has remotely come close to making a decision as to whether drop their insurance programs or not.

 

And even that said, most religious denominations don't have a problem with birth control, despite being pro-life. It's really primarily the Catholic Church.

 

The Catholic Bishops have already said they would pay penalty. I should have qualified it to institutions more less controlled by the bishops or that are strongly pro-life.

Freedom of religious expression is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The employee has other options.

Other stuff is off topic.

 

bnb, didn't really want to open it up because it is tangential to the point of the discussion, plus I have work I have to do tonight.

But . . . it's like this, current Constitutional law prohibits giving money to religious institutions based on the lemon test, one of the prongs being excessive entanglement between religion and government. So, money can be given if it meets certain criteria, i.e. federal funding for hospitals and other non-profits based off of the good they provide to the community, to be used as they see fit to avoid excessive entanglement. There are no strings attached and therefore no excessive entanglement. You seem to be suggesting a regime of do what we want or you don't get funding. Really that's a separate constitutional question that just ins't in play in a free exercise case like this. So like I said, tangential to the issue.

What is at play here is the administration defining what constitutes a religious employer for the sake of handing out an exemption. I don't know if I've seen a case like this before, but there's a very good chance that the court would overturn these provisions. The egregious point in my mind is why the Administration is ramming this down Catholics' throats when there are many workarounds, heck just have Obamacare fund it for those who want that sort of junk. It's hard not to see it as a power play against the church.

 

Which of the non-Church institutions are controlled by the bishops? I'm not too familiar with the Catholic system, so I really have no idea. Are things like the hospitals, etc controlled by the Church in some way, or are they essentially independent operations?

 

Depends on the boards. Most of the Bishops will preside on a board and have the nuclear option to veto any resolution of the board that does not gel with church teaching. I know that's how my diocesean undergrad works. Some might work differently though, like I know the big Catholic Health group that supported Obamacare (but is very much against this decision) is run mainly by a group of nuns.

I knew I should have took the non-profits class in law school.

 

I'm not suggesting removing funding. I'm suggesting we already have definitions of religious/non religious activities and that we use those in determining whether a religious exemption for employment law should apply.

I don't think requiring a hospital to provide a level of insurance that other hospitals (and other employers) must provide breaches any definition of excessive entanglement. No new strings here -- and no link to funding except the use of already established criteria defining secular vs non secular.

But do get yourself back to work....possibly joe-joes suggestion should prevail -- just pay the penalty. I also thought the first bit of pgabs article from huffpo was pretty good on how a church might look at funding items which go against its beliefs.

 

I don't see that has tangential. The argument presented is that religious based employers shouldn't be required to follow rules that would violate their religious dictates. They are emphasizing that they are explicitly a religious institution first and foremost. In that case then any government funding given to them is an entanglement in religion because these institutions themselves have said that they are religious institutions and it's impossible for them to separate that from all their other functions.

If they want to avoid entanglement then they should be able to live with the exemption as provided that the parts explicitly religious, the churches themselves are exempt, while the parts that function for a public good, hospitals, schools, and etc, are not exempt since that is the standard they apply for getting federal funding. Instead in one case they are claiming the WHOLE organization is all about religion while in the other case they are claiming only PART of the organization is all about religion. Basically they are asking for a double standard.

 

From a totally different perspective, I have to think it very shallow and perturbing that these "catholic-affiliated" groups are relying on secular exemptions to de facto enact their church based ideologies.

"Well, we cannot convince you to agree with us courtesy of our doctrinal positions, so instead we'll rely on the state to aid us in forcing you towards such a position anyhow."

How... medieval.

 

Typical Obama cluelessness. Hey King Barry -- some people care about their religion -- how about you not stomp on it.

We're over 3 years in and this clown is still doing "on the job training".

time to take out the trash, America

 

"A business man can't hold a candle to a clergyman"

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MeSSwKffj9o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:grin:

 

Christian Scientists are against most medical procedures. Therefore, if they run a hospital, they should be exempt from laws and be able to practice medicine according to their beliefs, even if they treat many outside their faith, correct?

If the Catholic church decrees that it is unacceptable to pull the plug on someone in a veggie state, than they can override the law and prevent a family and one's will from pulling the plug right?

Or if a church decides that STD's are god's punishment they should be able to refuse treating AIDs patients right?

I mean, religious-affiliated hospitals and clinics are above the law right? Doesn't matter if poor people don't know what they are getting into and have no idea that the hospital is denying them things because of their religion, not the patients?

 

Yup. If they want to say they are religious organizations, then they should give up federal funding as to not violate separation of church and state.

 

I'm trying my best to read the pro-Catholic arguments here to find the justification for a broader exemption. I'm usually pretty sensitive about religious freedom issues, but I'm just not finding it here. It seems to me that expanding the exemption only serves to disenfranchise workers of religiously-affiliated organizations. I think Obama got it right on this subject.

I am not surprised though that problems like this arise. We should never have built a health insurance system around employers in the first place. If workers in Catholic-affiliated businesses were getting their insurance privately or through the government, this dilemma of conscience would never have come up.

 

Some people don't but in the case of the Catholic Church both abortion and contraceptives are sins.