If What Goes on in People' Bedroom is None of My Business...

[Woodruff]

Look man, I don't have anything against condoms, but why should any organization be required by law to provide them? It's an unnecessary service (not life and death, except for the fertilized egg perhaps) which anyone can easily access anywhere anyway. When it comes to more controversial forms of contraceptives, it's even more ridiculous for the government to attempt to force a religious organization to provide it when doing so is in direct opposition to that religion's theology and teaching. Yes it is quite definitely anti-religion.

Nope. Sorry, but it's not anti-religious at all. The FACT of the matter is that those hospitals are not there because the religion demands it (this would change everything). Thus, any regulatory requirements put onto those hospitals have nothing to do with the religion itself at all, as long as those regulatory requirements are put onto all hospitals. It astounds me how you guys can't see this.

I could even agree with you IF there was any real appearance that this law was actually directed at religious hospitals (using the broad law as a cover to go after them or something), but that's simply not the case.

The whole idea that the religious in America are somehow being threatened or persecuted is almost laughable. In fact, I would think it was some sort of ironic joke if I didn't hear it so often.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so MY rights, MY religion are irrelevant, if my EMPLOYER does not agree, then I have to follow his rules.. and MY freedom of religion just does not apply. He can deny me coverage to health care he just does not happen to like. Under what universe does taking a job as a nurse or a janitor mean you should have to give up your own religious beliefs?

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them. No one is forcing you to work for them.

No one is forcing a religious organization to run a hospital or school, nor is it a requirement of the religion. I'm glad to see you agree with me that this does not at all infringe on religion...it's about time you finally realized it.

So religions don't have the power to open up other organizations? So we have to close ALL religious schools and hospitals? Religions have the freedom to run their own organizations as they choose to run them. And if the organization wants to be run on a doctrine that teaches that birth control is not allowed, then they shouldn't be coerced by the government to provide it anyway.

[/quote]Your first 2 statements are ridiculous blather. Truly, if you think ANYONE is actually saying that, you are an idiot!

The second part is not about freedom, at all. A hospital is not a private entity that impacts only those adhering to that religion. It is, essentially by definition, a public entity. The local Roman Catholic hospital serves everyone here, by moral law and by law. When I had my miscarriage, I could not just decide to go to another hospital. I HAD to go to the local one.

The standards of medical care are based on EVIDENCE, not beliefs. You, as an individual, have every right to decide to decline blood transfusions, to decide not to have basically any procedure with which you disagree. Neither you, nor your church has the right to decide that a particular service is just not going to be available in your community becuase you disagree with it. THAT is what is at risk here.

AND, you continue to ignore that birth control is not even just about preventing pregnancy, it is about maternal HEALTH and the health of their children. There are many, many reasons why someone might be on birth control. I have listed quite a few of them from regulation of menstruel cycles (even in preparation of BECOMING PREGNANT!!!), to preventing a pregnancy that is extremely unlikely to have a good outcome (so the woman can have a fully healthy child later, when her system has had time to recuperate/heal). Besides, the Roman Catholic church might think that every married women should have 10 kids without question, but most doctors AND most women, including Roman Catholic ones simply do not. IF they want to be in the medical BUSINESS (seems you have pointed out that medicine is a business many times already), then they need to follow proper MEDICAL protocols and not decide that a hospital is suddenly identical to a church.

If they cannot do that, then they have no business running hospitals!

Schools are slightly different, in that a Roman Catholic school CAN limit its student body to just practicing Roman Catholics. There, the question comes into definitions of staff, though. In a recent lawsuit, a school maintained that it classified all of its teachers as religious practitioners (cannot remember the exact classification. they were not quite considered pastors, but were also not secular employees). The courts ruled that this was legitimate and that therefore the rules regulating clergy in a church and not the basic labor rules that apply to any worker stood.

BUT, no one is required to go to a Roman Catholic school. People ARE forced to go to a Roman Catholic hospital when that is the hospital available in an emergency or even just urgent situation. And, since doctors generally have to pick which hospital they are affiliated with and insurance companies dictate which doctors are covered and employers pick the insurers... employers have a BIG say even in which hospital a person goes to. (ANY hospital must take dire emergencies, but not other situations).

[Ray Rider]

Look man, I don't have anything against condoms, but why should any organization be required by law to provide them? It's an unnecessary service (not life and death, except for the fertilized egg perhaps) which anyone can easily access anywhere anyway. When it comes to more controversial forms of contraceptives, it's even more ridiculous for the government to attempt to force a religious organization to provide it when doing so is in direct opposition to that religion's theology and teaching. Yes it is quite definitely anti-religion.

Nope. Sorry, but it's not anti-religious at all. The FACT of the matter is that those hospitals are not there because the religion demands it (this would change everything). Thus, any regulatory requirements put onto those hospitals have nothing to do with the religion itself at all, as long as those regulatory requirements are put onto all hospitals. It astounds me how you guys can't see this.

I find it weird that you're trying to separate Catholicism from hospitals when even a superficial glance at history will show you that Catholics have always operated hospitals as way of helping the world around them--a necessary outworking of their faith. Are you saying Catholics shouldn't operate hospitals? Because that's what would happen if the government were to keep trying to force Catholic hospitals to do things against their religion. I fail to understand why the government would choose to use such a minor issue to pick a fight with religious organizations that are doing such a massively beneficial work. If anything the government should be encouraging these hospitals to continue the great work that they do. Btw as a generally irrelevant side note, there's a Grey Nuns hospital in the city I live; I've been in there a few times and have been impressed with the work they do which is why I'd stick up for Catholic hospitals against an overly-intrusive government any day of the week.

I could even agree with you IF there was any real appearance that this law was actually directed at religious hospitals (using the broad law as a cover to go after them or something), but that's simply not the case.

Actually from what I understand, that definitely is the case:

Contraceptives are easy for anyone to get and are not a life-and-death necessity.
Therefore, contraceptives are not a necessary service for religious hospitals to provide.

The government knows Catholics believe contraceptives are sinful.
The government knows Catholic organizations operate many hospitals.
The government implemented a law attempting to force these hospitals to provide contraceptives.

Summary: The government implemented a clearly anti religious law by attempting to force all hospitals to provide contraceptives with no exception for religious hospitals.

[natty dread]

I find it weird that you're trying to separate Catholicism from hospitals when even a superficial glance at history will show you that Catholics have always operated hospitals as way of helping the world around them--a necessary outworking of their faith. Are you saying Catholics shouldn't operate hospitals?

So, let me get this straight...

If the nazy party was operating hospitals, and they refused to treat anyone except white people... would you say it was ok, because "if we force them to treat black people and jews they might close their hopsitals?"

If they had a long history of running those hospitals, would that make it ok?

I fail to understand why the government would choose to use such a minor issue to pick a fight with religious organizations that are doing such a massively beneficial work. If anything the government should be encouraging these hospitals to continue the great work that they do.

Yeah, of course it's a "minor issue" to you... after all, it's only women's health at stake.

Actually from what I understand, that definitely is the case:

Contraceptives are easy for anyone to get and are not a life-and-death necessity.
Therefore, contraceptives are not a necessary service for religious hospitals to provide.

Ok so hospitals get to choose what kind of treatment they provide? Wow. And yes, contraceptives are necessary for many women. Many women need them for health reasons, not just to prevent pregnancies.

It's not a life-or-death necessity for catholics to run hospitals. If they have a problem with providing proper healthcare to women, then they shouldn't be running hospitals. Have them sell their hospitals to someone who has no problem with providing care for ALL of the people.

The government knows Catholics believe contraceptives are sinful.
The government knows Catholic organizations operate many hospitals.
The government implemented a law attempting to force these hospitals to provide contraceptives.

Summary: The government implemented a clearly anti religious law by attempting to force all hospitals to provide contraceptives with no exception for religious hospitals.

Oh, the poor catholics, how will they cope?

Religious freedom should NEVER override more important freedoms. No one is telling catholics that they can't believe what they want about contraceptives. No one is putting them to jail or killing them for expressing their opinions about contraceptives. THAT would be oppressing their religious freedom.

But if they choose to provide a necessary service for people, a service which people other than those of their faiths are forced to depend on, a fundamental service such as healthcare... then NO, they can NOT use their "religion" as an excuse to discriminate against 50% of people and deny necessary treatment to them.

[Ray Rider]

I find it weird that you're trying to separate Catholicism from hospitals when even a superficial glance at history will show you that Catholics have always operated hospitals as way of helping the world around them--a necessary outworking of their faith. Are you saying Catholics shouldn't operate hospitals?

So, let me get this straight...

If the nazy party was operating hospitals, and they refused to treat anyone except white people... would you say it was ok, because "if we force them to treat black people and jews they might close their hopsitals?"

If they had a long history of running those hospitals, would that make it ok?

And Godwin's law strikes again...are you seriously trying to compare the Nazis, guilty of murdering over 6 million people and starting a world war which killed 60 million more, with a hospital not providing contraceptives? Wow. Just. Wow.

I fail to understand why the government would choose to use such a minor issue to pick a fight with religious organizations that are doing such a massively beneficial work. If anything the government should be encouraging these hospitals to continue the great work that they do.

Yeah, of course it's a "minor issue" to you... after all, it's only women's health at stake.

It's a minor issue because women who want to use them can obtain contraceptives easily anywhere anyway.

Actually from what I understand, that definitely is the case:

Contraceptives are easy for anyone to get and are not a life-and-death necessity.
Therefore, contraceptives are not a necessary service for religious hospitals to provide.

Ok so hospitals get to choose what kind of treatment they provide? Wow. And yes, contraceptives are necessary for many women. Many women need them for health reasons, not just to prevent pregnancies.

Obviously not all hospitals provide all services. If a hospital doesn't provide something that person wants, they are referred to the next hospital/clinic; and if it's a life-and-death occasion (which it wouldn't be in the case of contraceptives), they would be sent there by ambulance or helicopter (we have STARS up here, not sure what you have down there).

It's not a life-or-death necessity for catholics to run hospitals. If they have a problem with providing proper healthcare to women, then they shouldn't be running hospitals. Have them sell their hospitals to someone who has no problem with providing care for ALL of the people.

This is exactly what I was talking about; do you seriously want to close down a hospital because they don't provide contraceptives? If so, it's showing your bias against Catholic hospitals more than anything else...

Oh, the poor catholics, how will they cope?

I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish with lame mockery. Do you feel a need to vent or something? Your constant attacks against religions on this forum discourages people from debating with you because you appear to be seeking to demean and degrade rather than discuss.

Religious freedom should NEVER override more important freedoms. No one is telling catholics that they can't believe what they want about contraceptives. No one is putting them to jail or killing them for expressing their opinions about contraceptives. THAT would be oppressing their religious freedom.

I'm not sure what the punishment would be for refusing to provide contraceptives, but forcing religious people to provide a service which is expressly against their theology and teaching is definitely oppression of their religious freedom.

But if they choose to provide a necessary service for people, a service which people other than those of their faiths are forced to depend on, a fundamental service such as healthcare... then NO, they can NOT use their "religion" as an excuse to discriminate against 50% of people and deny necessary treatment to them.

I'm not sure why you're equating contraceptives with healthcare in general, but I'll try to play along a bit: If 98% of women in the US have used contraceptives as the media likes to say, then is it seriously so difficult to obtain that even Catholic hospitals which have never provided that service before must now provide it? If contraceptive use is really as common as the media makes it out to be, then obviously it's easily accessible and therefore not necessary to force Catholics to contradict their own beliefs about it.

[thegreekdog]

Very well done Ray.

[Symmetry]

Just to clarify some of the arguments going on here, not all forms of contraception are equal in medical terms. Condoms don't require a prescription, but contraceptive pills will require a doctor to sign off (at least in the UK).

So, while both are condemned equally by a minority of Catholics who believe all contraception to be bad (and to emphasise- this is a minority belief among Catholics, albeit one strongly held by the men in power- a bit like not reporting paedophilia to civil authorities), some forms of contraception do require a prescription.

The 98-99% figure includes all forms of contraception, which, as I've stated, the vast majority of Catholics do not see as an objection in principle.

On a personal note, most of the Catholics I know are kind of annoyed that the church chooses it's battle ground on issues of sex and gender as often as it does.

[thegreekdog]

On a personal note, most of the Catholics I know are kind of annoyed that the church chooses it's battle ground on issues of sex and gender as often as it does.

You can count me as one of those Catholics. There are three things that annoy me about the church (in no particular order): (1) persecution of gays; (2) insistence on the non-use of birth control (mostly the fighting about it, not the belief itself); and (3) non-persecution of pedophile priests.

[natty dread]

And Godwin's law strikes again...are you seriously trying to compare the Nazis, guilty of murdering over 6 million people and starting a world war which killed 60 million more, with a hospital not providing contraceptives? Wow. Just. Wow.

You're using godwin wrong. Godwin's law isn't some automatic free pass that allows you to ignore any argument as long as it mentions nazis in some way.

What godwin's law pertains to are situations where, for example, someone uses "hitler was a vegetarian" as an argument against vegetarianism. That's not what's going on here: I was making a perfectly valid analogy, and you failed to refute it in any way, instead opting to claim moral superiority.

So, if the Ku Klux Klan ran a hospital, and refused to treat black people, and they had a long history of running hospitals... would it be OK in your view?

Would it be ok for Jehova's witnesses to run a hospital, and then refuse to do blood transfusions?

Would it be ok for the Amish to run a hospital and treat everything with leeches?

It's a minor issue because women who want to use them can obtain contraceptives easily anywhere anyway.

Really? Some contraceptives require prescription. Some need to be installed in a hospital. What about implants, IUD:s, etc.?

Obviously not all hospitals provide all services. If a hospital doesn't provide something that person wants, they are referred to the next hospital/clinic; and if it's a life-and-death occasion (which it wouldn't be in the case of contraceptives), they would be sent there by ambulance or helicopter (we have STARS up here, not sure what you have down there).

So, your suggestion is for catholic hospitals to send all women who need contraceptives to another hospital with a helicopter?

I'm sure there are places where the people don't really have a choice of hospitals. Maybe there's only one hospital in town, and the next one is way too far away, and that one hospital happens to be a catholic one. Does that mean that they can then deny contraceptives from the entire population of that town?

This is exactly what I was talking about; do you seriously want to close down a hospital because they don't provide contraceptives? If so, it's showing your bias against Catholic hospitals more than anything else...

Nice strawman. No one's talking about closing down anything. I said if the catholics refuse to provide healthcare for all people, then they should sell their hospital to someone who has no problem treating everyone equally.

I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish with lame mockery. Do you feel a need to vent or something? Your constant attacks against religions on this forum discourages people from debating with you because you appear to be seeking to demean and degrade rather than discuss.

Again, a religious person is being persecuted by the evil atheists... You can't just enter a debate about religion, and then counter every argument against your religion with "you're not being respectful! you're mocking my religion and oppressing my religious freedom!" That's not how it works.

Quit being so defensive and stop evading the actual argument. If you have a point to make, make it, but quit appealing to the same old excuses that people are just "mocking your religion" whenever they say something you disagree with.

Also, I object to your use of the word "lame". It's a derogatory word that is offensive to disabled people, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep bigoted terms like that out of this discussion.

I'm not sure what the punishment would be for refusing to provide contraceptives, but forcing religious people to provide a service which is expressly against their theology and teaching is definitely oppression of their religious freedom.

No one's forcing them. No one is forcing them to run a hospital. But if they choose to run a hospital, then they are no longer practicing religion, they are running a hospital. And people who run a hospital should provide healthcare for everyone equally.

I'm not sure why you're equating contraceptives with healthcare in general, but I'll try to play along a bit: If 98% of women in the US have used contraceptives as the media likes to say, then is it seriously so difficult to obtain that even Catholic hospitals which have never provided that service before must now provide it? If contraceptive use is really as common as the media makes it out to be, then obviously it's easily accessible and therefore not necessary to force Catholics to contradict their own beliefs about it.

So, since people can learn any facts from wikipedia anyway, you can just let schools teach whatever they want and not require them to provide correct information to students, right?

That statistics of contraceptive use includes all contraceptives, including condoms. You can buy condoms from a supermarket, but you can't get a hormone implant or an intrauterine device from one.

[Symmetry]

Very well done Natty.

[thegreekdog]

Very well done Natty.

I disagree.

[Symmetry]

Very well done Natty.

I disagree.

I'm ambivalent. Are we having a moment?

[thegreekdog]

Very well done Natty.

I disagree.

I'm ambivalent. Are we having a moment?

Maybe. Oh wait, you're being ambivalent.

[Symmetry]

[Phatscotty]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

[Symmetry]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

You'll probably have a different opinion when you get to someone else's bedroom.

Did I say that already?

[thegreekdog]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

It has nothing to do with privacy dude. It has to do with: (1) economic freedom; (2) religious freedom; and (3) healthcare (or the right to healthcare).

Also, I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are using condoms as their poster contraceptive. There are no hospitals giving out condoms as part of a health insurance plan. Ridiculous.

[Symmetry]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

It has nothing to do with privacy dude. It has to do with: (1) economic freedom; (2) religious freedom; and (3) healthcare (or the right to healthcare).

Also, I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are using condoms as their poster contraceptive. There are no hospitals giving out condoms as part of a health insurance plan. Ridiculous.

I'm sure we'll part ways on any number of issues, but this is common ground. It's stupid politically, dumb when it comes to healthcare, ignorant and unnecessarily divisive when it comes to religious practice, and really not the place that Catholicism should be making a stand.

[thegreekdog]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

It has nothing to do with privacy dude. It has to do with: (1) economic freedom; (2) religious freedom; and (3) healthcare (or the right to healthcare).

Also, I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are using condoms as their poster contraceptive. There are no hospitals giving out condoms as part of a health insurance plan. Ridiculous.

I'm sure we'll part ways on any number of issues, but this is common ground. It's stupid politically, dumb when it comes to healthcare, ignorant and unnecessarily divisive when it comes to religious practice, and really not the place that Catholicism should be making a stand.

The president has already let the Catholic hospitals opt out (like a number of large corporations). So that's done already. And he did it for political reasons; he doesn't want to alienate Catholics that voted for him in 2008. Thus, any continued argument is kind of irrelevant anyway.

I would say it's stupid politically: (1) for the president to maintain that Catholic hospitals must provide for insurance for contraceptives - he's already done something about that because, say what you want about the president, he definitely is not stupid; (2) for Republican candidates who continue to harp on the issue (that won't change unfortunately, despite the opt out).

It's ignorant when it comes to healthcare (because we're not talking about condoms; we're talking about stuff like the birth control pill).

It's not ignorant with respect to religious practice. It's clearly against the tenets of the Catholic faith to use birth control (whether most Catholics use birth control or not). And any requirements are arguably unconstitutional for religious reasons (although I would argue that such requirements are unconstitutional violations of intrastate commerce anyway).

I do agree that it's a bad place for the Catholic Church to take a stand. There's a lot more important stuff for the Church to be concerned with.

[Phatscotty]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

It has nothing to do with privacy dude. It has to do with: (1) economic freedom; (2) religious freedom; and (3) healthcare (or the right to healthcare).

Also, I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are using condoms as their poster contraceptive. There are no hospitals giving out condoms as part of a health insurance plan. Ridiculous.

who is using condoms? It was mostly about the birth control pills etc. at first, but I guess all birth control qualifies while we are at it. Handing it out with public funds is not the government's businessn and neither is it any of mine to support with my dollars.

And what is economic freedom without privacy? What about religious freedom without privacy? Privacy even has a place in healthcare as well. I guess it's kind of a common denominator huh?

[thegreekdog]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

It has nothing to do with privacy dude. It has to do with: (1) economic freedom; (2) religious freedom; and (3) healthcare (or the right to healthcare).

Also, I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are using condoms as their poster contraceptive. There are no hospitals giving out condoms as part of a health insurance plan. Ridiculous.

who is using condoms? It was mostly about the birth control pills etc. at first, but I guess all birth control qualifies while we are at it. Handing it out with public funds is not the government's businessn and neither is it any of mine to support with my dollars.

And what is economic freedom without privacy? What about religious freedom without privacy? Privacy even has a place in healthcare as well. I guess it's kind of a common denominator huh?

I suppose so. But you were trying to make the comparison to privacy as to what goes on in the bedroom.

[Phatscotty]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

You'll probably have a different opinion when you get to someone else's bedroom.

Did I say that already?

It has nothing to do with my sexual habits, and everything to do with schizo freaks thinking they can have it both ways.

In other words, I'm calling them hypocrites. It's the principle...

[Symmetry]

who is using condoms?

Seriously?

[thegreekdog]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

You'll probably have a different opinion when you get to someone else's bedroom.

Did I say that already?

It has nothing to do with my sexual habits, and everything to do with schizo freaks thinking they can have it both ways.

In other words, I'm calling them hypocrites. It's the principle...

Yeah, that's what I'm saying is the problem with your argument. It's not the same thing.

[Symmetry]

Sorry Scotty, this is the ground I agree with GD on- your argument is flawed.