![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The birth control flap
Ok, the Catholic church and others are claiming that their freedom of religion is being infringed by requuiring the health plans for employees to include birth control benefits.
This is BS. What the media and others *should* be doiing is asking why the "religious" organizations in question wish to infringe the religious freedom of their *employees*.
After all, it's not remotely proper for them to force their *employees* to abide by the rules of a church they may not belong to.
If people challenged it *that* way, it'd place these jerks in a bind. Because they *can't* justify forcing people to follow religious rules that said people don't want to follow.
ETA: Consider the reaction if the Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh day Adventists objected to having to include coverage for blood transfusions. Or the Christian Scientists (or several other churches) objected to having to pay for health coverage *at all* (because they believe prayer is the only valid way to deal with health problems.
Those are *exactly* analagous to the Catholic church's position. If the Catholics are allowed to claim religious freedom to not cover birth control for employess that wish to use it, then those other faiths should be allowed to drop those *other* items. You can't have it both ways.
This is BS. What the media and others *should* be doiing is asking why the "religious" organizations in question wish to infringe the religious freedom of their *employees*.
After all, it's not remotely proper for them to force their *employees* to abide by the rules of a church they may not belong to.
If people challenged it *that* way, it'd place these jerks in a bind. Because they *can't* justify forcing people to follow religious rules that said people don't want to follow.
ETA: Consider the reaction if the Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh day Adventists objected to having to include coverage for blood transfusions. Or the Christian Scientists (or several other churches) objected to having to pay for health coverage *at all* (because they believe prayer is the only valid way to deal with health problems.
Those are *exactly* analagous to the Catholic church's position. If the Catholics are allowed to claim religious freedom to not cover birth control for employess that wish to use it, then those other faiths should be allowed to drop those *other* items. You can't have it both ways.
no subject
no subject
Your argument amounts to "Catholics should allow others to commit murder under the guise of it being a religious practice - that non-Catholics have the religious freedom to kill for their own convenience."
It's not just Catholics, either, though they're probably the most vocal about it right now; it's pretty much all of the Abrahamic religions, in their most 'orthodox' forms.
It wouldn't be the first time that religious practices have been interfered with or banned because the wider society disapproved; the price of Utah's admission to the US was the new "revelation" that polygamy is bad; there's the case of the Voudoun practitioners in Florida that didn't get a pass on animal sacrifice; Rastafarians are not allowed to use ganja (marijuana)[though on the other side of that, there is the allowance for peyote for that Amerind tribe]; I'm sure there are others.
So... where - and how - do you draw the line?
no subject
Even looked as as the use of birth control being a sin, murder is a mortal sin. Using birth control is a venial sin.
You also have the religious law versus society relationship backwards. This is not equivalent to the vodoun wanting to do animal sacrafices or the rastfaraians wanting to use ganja.
Instead, it's equivalent to them insisting that all their employees follow those religious practices, even if they don't belong to the religion.
no subject
I will concede the difference between abortion (murder) and contraception, for those methods that prevent fertilization or implantation; my understanding is that those methods - such as the "morning after pill" - that actually cause miscarriage are viewed as being abortion, not contraception, and therefore murder.
As far as the issue of forcing employees to follow their religious practices, they are not saying that their employees may not use contraception; they are saying that those employees should do it at their own expense, not the Church's.
The organizations that would claim exemption from the rule in question, should such exemption be offered, are openly part of the religious establishment. Any prospective employee should be aware of what they are getting into, just as when a student attends a college run by the Church (e.g., Iona or Fordham), they can expect to be required to take religiously-oriented courses.
Even if you consider it strictly a medical issue, HMOs make decisions on procedures and medications that are covered or not covered all the time. This would be no different, and the theoretical HMO plan in question would likely have been chosen as a plan to be offered specifically because it did not cover anything not permitted by the Church.
Do you mandate that the company-subsidized cafeteria in the Jewish-owned business serve non-kosher foods to their non-Jewish employees, just because one of them wants a ham-and-cheese sandwich?
Where - and how - do you draw the line?