Obama's Interference in Religious Freedom? - Discuss

Manach

Given Obama's attempt to interfere with religious freedom by in the recent birth-control mandate, it would seem that for people who don't want President Obama in their Churches, Santorum is an option.

Memnoch

Manach wrote: »

Given Obama's attempt to interfere with religious freedom by in the recent birth-control mandate, it would seem that for people who don't want President Obama in their Churches, Santorum is an option.

When religious institutions are prevented from discriminating against people because of their beliefs they cry about how this is interfering with their religious freedom. It is irony and hypocrisy of the highest order.

The birth-control mandate isn't about impinging on religious freedom, it is about ensuring and safe guarding the freedom for women to have access to birth control, regardless of who they work for.

Of course, religions are obsessed with imposing their morality on everyone else, but their rhethoric on this issue is beyond stupid.

Manach

Stupid would be the belief that the Churches would somehow roll-over and have allowed the State to mandate the subsidisation abortifacient drugs, sterilizations and contraception. That united nearly all elements of Church opinion from the left and right to force the compromise on the HHS mandate.

Memnoch

Yes, it's sad that religion still has such a strong influence in the US. That doesn't change the fact that this isn't an issue of religious freedom.

Contraception is legal in the US. Women should not be discriminated against based on where they work, especially when they work in a place that enjoys massive tax breaks.

I'm happy with the compromise. If the beliefs of the religious can be respected without infringing on any one else's human rights, then I have no problem with that. But religious institutions too often confuse their morality as some kind of divine dictat to be enforced on everyone, wherever possible... oh wait.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm happy with the compromise.

"Compromise?" Unconstitutional is more like it! The Constitution protects religious organizations in their expression of religious beliefs. Using the power of the federal government to make a religious organization pay for something that their religion fundamentally considers wrong for over 2,000 years clearly is unconstitutional.

Memnoch

Yes, anytime anyone religious is stopped from discriminating based on their beliefs it's an attack on their freedom of religion.

Usual nonsense.

So if a Muslim organisation is funding a school or a hospital they should be able to insist that any women working for them must wear the full hijab.

Your right to religious freedom ends where they impinge on more basic rights of people to equal treatment.

If it is unconstitutional, I'm sure there will be a challenge and the supreme court will decide.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

So if a Muslim organisation is funding a school or a hospital they should be able to insist that any women working for them must wear the full hijab.

what? of course they should. if you turn up for work in a corporate environment in speedos and a hawaiian tshirt what the hell do you think would happen?

Dr Galen

I've moved these posts out of the Rick Santorum thread, because they were OT, but I think it's an interesting discussion.

Cheers

DrG

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

"Compromise?" Unconstitutional is more like it! The Constitution protects religious organizations in their expression of religious beliefs. Using the power of the federal government to make a religious organization pay for something that their religion fundamentally considers wrong for over 2,000 years clearly is unconstitutional.

It was my understanding the religious organizations in these situations would not incur the charge for the offending products.

I see the entire tangent as just that really: A side ring circus. It doesn't matter that it's birth control or a church. The argument has absolutely diddly f*ck sh*t squat nothing to do with Religion or Religious Freedom or War or Religion or Jihad on Catholicism or anything of the sort... the only tangible issue is the entire notion of forcing individuals to purchase products, which is currently unprecedented. I don't really count corporations under that heading, either: Corporations aren't a consequence of nature like a person is. Nor is a car. I rate requiring a business to have liability insurance among car drivers being required to have car insurance: both are the by-product of entirely voluntary and calculated choices. Being alive, however, isn't exactly. Forcing someone to own health insurance because they are alive and breathing is the issue here. To f*ck with the religious argument, it holds no water either Holy or otherwise.

Memnoch

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

what? of course they should. if you turn up for work in a corporate environment in speedos and a hawaiian tshirt what the hell do you think would happen?

And what's next? Strict Muslim parents deciding their daughters shouldn't be allowed to go to school?

Or a school run by a Muslim charity insisting that not only all female teachers but also all female students must were the full hijab and be covered from head to toe while attending the premises.

southsiderosie

Memnoch wrote: »

And what's next? Strict Muslim parents deciding their daughters shouldn't be allowed to go to school?

Amish parents can already do this (I believe they can pull their children after the 4th grade), and their right to do so has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Memnoch wrote: »

Or a school run by a Muslim charity insisting that not only all female teachers but also all female students must were the full hijab and be covered from head to toe while attending the premises.

If they are a private employer, then they have the right to ask their employees to wear the required uniform. Whether that uniform is a hijab (or a Hawaiian shirt), I don't really think there is a difference.

If the students attend the school, and this is the uniform, then I don't see how this would be out of bounds.

southsiderosie

My problem with this whole situation (aside from the mandate issue, as Overheal pointed out), is the fact that the RCC in the US has no problem taking billions of dollars in federal money for its hospitals in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, but then screams whenever the government makes rules that they don't like. So government is bad when it tried to impose secular health mandates, but government is good when they give out Medicare payments or NIH grants?

I know that the birth control issue is not contingent on being a government contractor or sub-contractor (in which case, the RCC would not have a leg to stand on), but this bothers me nevertheless.

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

"Compromise?" Unconstitutional is more like it! The Constitution protects religious organizations in their expression of religious beliefs. Using the power of the federal government to make a religious organization pay for something that their religion fundamentally considers wrong for over 2,000 years clearly is unconstitutional.

are you forgetting that some religious beliefs go back much further than 2000 years,is the US constitution not meant to protect all?

Overheal

Dr Galen wrote: »

I've moved these posts out of the Rick Santorum thread, because they were OT, but I think it's an interesting discussion.

Cheers

DrG

Modding that goes above the usual call of duty. Cheers.

Manach

In regard receiving money from the Government. All governments, unless they wish to be lumped with Augustine's bandits, act in some way to the betterment of the citizen. Catholic institutions provide about 1/6 of the social network of the US. By following the initial HHS mandate, that could have been curtail to just Catholics receiving social aid to allow for the minor exemption. Thus for ideological reasons, the administration was willing to sacrifice those services. The RCC was the organisation, in terms of size and base, which was able to response effectively to such administration interference and was not susceptible to de-facto ideological bullying such as the recent Planned Parenthood (which is also tax-payer funded) v. Susan G. Komen furore.

Memnoch

southsiderosie wrote: »

Amish parents can already do this (I believe they can pull their children after the 4th grade), and their right to do so has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Well that's a whole other debate, but I think this is a bad idea unless there is external testing periodically carried out on children to make sure they don't fall behind.

If they are a private employer, then they have the right to ask their employees to wear the required uniform. Whether that uniform is a hijab (or a Hawaiian shirt), I don't really think there is a difference.

If the students attend the school, and this is the uniform, then I don't see how this would be out of bounds.

It's not that clear cut is it? To say that it is equivalent to a private employer asking for a professional dress code is not exactly analogous. Because a private employer wouldn't get away with telling their employees that the dress code for women should be different from that of men, i.e. they will ask that people should dress professionally or maybe on some days people can dress more casually, but they won't discriminate between men and women, and that is what this kind of practise does and would do. We are talking about oppression of women here and to compare that to a professional dress code at work is disingenous.

As for school uniform, it is completely out of bounds. Again the idea that girl's should be forced to cover up entirely and not boys, is not the same as having a uniform. It is oppressive and discriminatory practise and just because this is based on religious faith does not mean it should be tolerated any more than the purile attempts of the American Catholic church to deny the woman working for them access to contraception.

southsiderosie

Memnoch wrote: »

It's not that clear cut is it? To say that it is equivalent to a private employer asking for a professional dress code is not exactly analogous. Because a private employer wouldn't get away with telling their employees that the dress code for women should be different from that of men, i.e. they will ask that people should dress professionally or maybe on some days people can dress more casually, but they won't discriminate between men and women, and that is what this kind of practise does and would do. We are talking about oppression of women here and to compare that to a professional dress code at work is disingenous.

I thought we were talking about employer mandates?

Private employers do this all the time - the uniforms for women are routinely different from those of men.

If you work for Hooters, they are going to ask you to wear hotpants. If you work for a Muslim religious organization, they may ask you to wear a hijab. I don't see the difference here.

Memnoch wrote: »

As for school uniform, it is completely out of bounds. Again the idea that girl's should be forced to cover up entirely and not boys, is not the same as having a uniform. It is oppressive and discriminatory practise and just because this is based on religious faith does not mean it should be tolerated any more than the purile attempts of the American Catholic church to deny the woman working for them access to contraception.

Sending your child to a private school is not compulsory, so I fail to see how this is out of bounds. If you don't want your child to do religious things in school - whether it is wear hijab, go to daily mass, or celebrate Shabbat on Friday - then don't send them to a private religious school.

Memnoch

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sending your child to a private school is not compulsory, so I fail to see how this is out of bounds. If you don't want your child to do religious things in school - whether it is wear hijab, go to daily mass, or celebrate Shabbat on Friday - then don't send them to a private religious school.

Well I for one think that the idea that a child can be sent to school where she is forced to wear a hijab is taking tolerance and religious freedom too far. Also I don't think it is a question of freedom, but of discrimination.

Also, I think it's really interesting that the same political party that were in such an enraged furor at the suggestion of an Islam community centre near ground zero are first to the pulpit when it comes to championing 'religious freedom' in this instance.

I wonder what the two situations have in common?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

timesnap

memnoch i find it a pity that only selective bits of your posts are being quoted,then mutual backslapping going on by certain parties even though the bigger picture you are trying to portray is being ignored.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, that was assumed in my post. I still have a problem with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because I disagree with things like oppression and discrimination.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Yes.

Just as I would want the government to intervene if girls below the age of consent were being forced into marriage due to their parent's religious beliefs or if they were being told they could not attend school at all, even if they wanted to because their only role is to be someone's wife. Just as I wouldn't agree with a man being able to divorce his wife by saying the word 'Talaqh,' three times, which is legally possible in many islamic countries.

southsiderosie

Memnoch wrote: »

Well I for one think that the idea that a child can be sent to school where she is forced to wear a hijab is taking tolerance and religious freedom too far. Also I don't think it is a question of freedom, but of discrimination.

Religious freedom means the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, as long as it is not in violation of civil law. Parents generally make these decisions for their children until adulthood. A private school setting uniform policies based on religious tenets is well within its rights. If a public school had religiously-based uniform requirements, then we would have a problem.

Memnoch wrote: »

Also, I think it's really interesting that the same political party that were in such an enraged furor at the suggestion of an Islam community centre near ground zero are first to the pulpit when it comes to championing 'religious freedom' in this instance.

I wonder what the two situations have in common?

What?

Memnoch wrote: »

Yes.

Just as I would want the government to intervene if girls below the age of consent were being forced into marriage due to their parent's religious beliefs or if they were being told they could not attend school at all, even if they wanted to because their only role is to be someone's wife. Just as I wouldn't agree with a man being able to divorce his wife by saying the word 'Talaqh,' three times, which is legally possible in many islamic countries.

How can you compare a school uniform requirement to forced marriage? Forced marriage is illegal. School uniforms are not.

If you send your child to Catholic school, regardless of their religious background, they are going to have to attend daily mass. If you as a parent dont' like it, or think it takes too much time away from math or other subjects, then don't send them to that school. It's quite simple actually, and I don't understand what all of the fuss is about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

southsiderosie wrote: »

Religious freedom means the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, as long as it is not in violation of civil law. Parents generally make these decisions for their children until adulthood. A private school setting uniform policies based on religious tenets is well within its rights. If a public school had religiously-based uniform requirements, then we would have a problem.

I have a problem with it. Saying that it's just a case of school uniform is downplaying the real issue. It's a case of girl's being asked to cover up because of discrimination, prejudice and a religious patriarchy extending centuries and has innumerable unforseen and harmful consequences in the development of a young person. And if there were Islamic schools in the US where girls were being forced to wear the full hijab, I'm pretty sure there would be a large outcry.

What?

I should think it was obvious.

How can you compare a school uniform requirement to forced marriage? Forced marriage is illegal. School uniforms are not.

It's not just a case of school uniform, and you know it. A school uniform requiring kids to be naked would be illegal, private school or not. Similarly forcing girls to wear the full hijab, should be illegal.

If you send your child to Catholic school, regardless of their religious background, they are going to have to attend daily mass. If you as a parent dont' like it, or think it takes too much time away from math or other subjects, then don't send them to that school. It's quite simple actually, and I don't understand what all of the fuss is about.

I went to a catholic school and was not required to attend prayer or religious classes.

Though I do think at this stage, we are veering off topic from Obama's so called interference in religious freedom. But feel free to go another 20 back and forth posts on the hijab analogy, I've made my point on it and I don't think there's anything new I'd like to say on that particular subject.

timesnap

southsiderosie wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

SSR where is that true?it certainly is not true in Ireland or many people from Ireland i know who emigrated to the US.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

may'be it should be Permabear? the Burka for instance is a dreadful attire to force people to wear.
i single it out because by any reasonable standards it is obviously uncomfortable,but if it was banned so should all other forms of religious attire in private and public schools.
some religious ideas are clearly not in the best interest of the children being raised by extremist parents....... bring it even more extreme,have parents got the right to refuse blood transfusions to their children as some try to?
were do the children's rights come into it?
so sexual or physical abuse breaks the law and the children will be taken into care,but to satisfy religious freedom the blind eye should be turned to other forms of abuse?
it is ok to send children to school on a sweltering hot day in a burka,but try sending them to school naked on the same day and get arrested.

surprising to see SSR and Permabear agreeing on anything though!:pac:

EDIT: Memnochs post was not here when i started this post,but we seem to agree a lot.

Manach

The state can and does step in the case blood transfusion where the child's life is in danger - e.g. recent case in Temple St. Hospital - against the express wishes of the Parents. However, that completely differs from the behavioural norms - where placing a child in a private school is an aspect of religious/cultural choice. In other States, this choice is looked on with disfavour and as a means to suppress minority rights and impose a nationalist hegemony state schools impose a uniformity of character on future citizens.

southsiderosie

timesnap wrote: »

SSR where is that true?it certainly is not true in Ireland or many people from Ireland i know who emigrated to the US.

It was true in the Catholic schools in Chicago when I was growing up. Since that was a while ago, maybe they have downgraded to weekly mass. But Catholic schools in Chicago have a lot of non-Catholic students: people send their kids there because they are seen as safer, and in many areas better academically than the local neighborhood public schools. One of the best high schools in Chicago is Jesuit, but there are a lot of Southern Baptist and Jewish students there.

timesnap wrote: »

may'be it should be Permabear? the Burka for instance is a dreadful attire to force people to wear.
i single it out because by any reasonable standards it is obviously uncomfortable,but if it was banned so should all other forms of religious attire in private and public schools.

I've seen the terms hijab and burqua used interchangeably in this thread, but I'd like to point out that they aren't the same thing. Honestly, if there was a Muslim school by my house that had an excellent math and science program, but required girls to wear a hijab (headscarf), I'd tell her to suck it up, wrap it up, and hit the lab! I went the the local Jewish Community Center for gymnastics as a kid, and participating in Shabbat services on Friday didn't kill me; it actually gave me a level of cultural awareness about Jews that I wouldn't have had otherwise.

timesnap wrote: »

surprising to see SSR and Permabear agreeing on anything though!:pac:

As long as we stay away from political economy...

But to get back OT

Manach wrote: »

Given Obama's attempt to interfere with religious freedom by in the recent birth-control mandate, it would seem that for people who don't want President Obama in their Churches, Santorum is an option.

Well for people who don't want the government in their bedrooms, Santorum is the LAST option.

If the Catholic Church doesn't want to be treated like any other employer, then don't hire laypeople.

Manach

That's the solution then, massive layoffs and only cater to only Catholics, then you can slide pass this new imposed HHS mandate, which like all State directives can be updated to whatever State policy it seems an ideological fit. Seriously.
That would be like denying support to RCC charities in the context of human trafficking because they don't refer the victims to abortion services.
Oh wait - they've already done that.
This mandate is play for electoral reasons to placitate their base for the coming elections. What they did not expect was the degree and passion of RCC response to this interference with their constitutional rights.

southsiderosie

Manach wrote: »

That's the solution then, massive layoffs and only cater to only Catholics, then you can slide pass this new imposed HHS mandate, which like all State directives can be updated to whatever State policy it seems an ideological fit. Seriously.
That would be like denying support to RCC charities in the context of human trafficking because they don't refer the victims to abortion services.
Oh wait - they've already done that.
This mandate is play for electoral reasons to placitate their base for the coming elections. What they did not expect was the degree and passion of RCC response to this interference with their constitutional rights.

The RCC hierarchy has responded passionately. Given that over 90% of Catholic women in the US has used some birth control, the response from the faithful has been a bit different - people are torn, but the response of Congressman Issa - to hold Congressional hearings that did not include any women - did little to address the concerns that this was yet again another case of men trying to tell women what to do with their bodies - or for that matter, couples who are trying to engage in sensible family planning through the use of birth control.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.