Religion/Gender Wars...US Constitution and the Debate over Religion

[shadowkat]

Finished Sweet Revenge by Nora Roberts - which was okay. I liked the two lead characters and the whole jewel thief storyline. What didn't work are two things: 1)e-books under $10 bucks for some reason have a lot of typos. "You're" in this book was "You've", and in one sentence "kiss" was "lass". There were others as well. And they were consistent, making me wonder if it was a translation to digital content issue. I know something about translating regular text to full text via ACII, it's not as easy as it looks and certain words can get garbled. I used to explain the process to journal publishers and ensure quality standards would be kept. Amazon tends to be a bit lax on the quality for less-expensive books. 2) Roberts depiction of the Muslim religion and Islam...furthers stereotypes and hatred of this often misunderstood culture and religion. This annoyed me. I know enough about it, to figure out where the cliche stereotypes fell into place. But other readers don't. And she made me hate Islam, if I didn't know what I did and didn't have a critical mind, I wouldn't have questioned it. Shame, Nora. Shame. Also not helped by the fact that the hero is a white, blond haired, Englishman. And the villain, a Arab sheik. This is also a cliche. But..that said it does follow the trope of a lot of these books - gender battle. Or battle of the sexes. All romance novels seem to be about women taming men or vice verse.

Reading the novel, Sweet Revenge and the recent controversy about contraception in the US Congress, reminded me of other religious controversies. Which makes me realize at the center of the culture wars is gender rights vs. religious rights. Which rights should govern when the two overlap? Your freedom to practice the religion of your choice in the manner you deem fit? Or equality of gender and sexual orientation? And to what degree does one right interfere with the other or which right should supersede the other?

It's an interesting question. And depending on what country you reside, may not be a question at all. I may be wrong - but I don't believe that the religious freedom is a right in many countries, its why so many people immigrated to the US - the right to practice the religion of their choice. It's part of the US's foundation. The Pilgrims, the French Protestants, Catholics from Ireland, and various others fled to the US in order to be free to practice their religion.

The US does have a separation of Church and State. In that the government does not tell people what religion they can practice or how they can practice it. This separation gets a bit complicated and thorny, when the government provides funding to organizations that happen to be affiliated to a religious institution. Such as hospitals, schools, and universities. That's where things start to get complicated.

The Same-Sex marriage bit was an issue with religions - when it became apparent that the government could pull funding from a Catholic Hospital, University, or other affiliated organization if it failed to recognize or perform a same-sex marriage. Ie. If a hospital refused to recognize a husband or wife of a same-sex partner for medical issues or for insurance, due to religious considerations.

Contraception has likewise become an issue in regards to affiliated Catholic organizations who do not want the government to force them to provide contraception or pay for it. The Catholic University does not want to pay for it's employees use of contraception. Or have the government force them too. It's fine if the employees go elsewhere, but not on the Catholic Church's dime. The government states - we won't fund you or give you a grant if you don't do this - under Obama's Health Care initiative. The Catholic Church argues this is a violation of our religious rights.

Here's what the First Amendment to The US Constitution States about Religious Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[James] Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

Scholarly Commentary .--The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ''the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,'' 6 looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ''The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.'' 7



Herein lies the cultural difference between the United States and many other countries. [ETC: By many, I do not mean every country outside the US, it's meant as a general term because I didn't want to do a listing. But go here:http://www.religiousfreedom.com/ and here: http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3595 - Examples: IRan, Egypt, China, Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, Sudan and Saudia Arabia. ] In our laws - we provide the individual states with the ability to determine religious practice, we also, allow each religion to determine it's own practices and laws. This explains why in Utah there are allowances for the Mormon faith that do not exist in say Conneticut. Or why Nevada allows gambling, while another state does not. The laws on morality and religion vary from state to state. If you are an European, the best way to wrap your mind around this is to imagine what it would be like to have the United States of Europe. Each country gets to govern itself, yet you have another governing body, the Oversight, that sort of checks your laws. If your laws interfere with the governing body, you can't do it. Example? Many Southern States owned slaves. The Federal Government passed a law abolishing slavery. The Southern States had to abide by the Federal government's law. They didn't get to decide on their own. Furious - they went to War. Actually the Civil War wasn't just about that ruling, it was about a lot of things...mostly economic and related to the industrial revolution. So that's a simplistic explanation. [ETC: See comments for more on this. But they went to War before the ruling got enacted. Not after. Sorry for the confusion.]

''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' 8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9

The point was to prevent persecution. Keep in mind that at the time of the US Constitution - the US had fought a couple of Wars with its European parents to achieve independence. Many of the people who immigrated here - fled because of religious persecution in Europe. Europe at this point in time was heavily Catholic and a bit nasty about it. Hello Spainish Inquisition. And the whole British bit about Catholicism and Puritans. There were a lot of religious wars going on in the 1700s and early 1800s.

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position.

In other words, all religions are permitted. One should not be favored over another. Which is why many Jews fled to the US in WWII, even if it was difficult, because there was a lot of anti-semitism here back then. Scientology continues to defend itself against government attempts to restrict or interfere on the grounds that it is a religion and under the Establishment Clause, has the right to exist without undue interference.

Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion .--Before considering the development of the two religion clauses by the Supreme Court, one should notice briefly the tests developed by which religion cases are adjudicated by the Court. While later cases rely on a series of rather well-defined, if difficult-to-apply, tests, the language of earlier cases ''may have [contained] too sweeping utterances on aspects of these clauses that seemed clear in relation to the particular cases but have limited meaning as general principles.'' It is well to recall that ''the purpose [of the religion clauses] was to state an objective, not to write a statute.''

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.'' 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

I removed the footnotes for simplicity, please go to the link to find them. The test is an important one and can be applied to the current cultural arguments. Can Congress prove that forcing an affiliate of a Catholic Organization, such as say The Catholic Univeristy or Notre Dame or St. Vincents Hospital to provide its employees with access to contraception and insurance for it, is a violation of this test? Do they inhibit the practice of religion? If the government refuses to fund a Catholic Charities Health Care Clinic that does not provide birth control pills to its employees - is that an infraction based on the test? What is excessive?

This question arose recently in a French case regarding whether women are permitted to wear religious symbols or Muslim Scarves. France's Ban of Head Scarves - considered a violation of religious freedom by both the French Constitution and International Human Rights Law.

The proposed French law banning Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols in state schools would violate the rights to freedom of religion and expression, Human Rights Watch said today. The law, which forbids “signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students,” will be debated in the French Senate on March 2.

“The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation.”

International human rights law obliges state authorities to avoid coercion in matters of religious freedom, and this obligation must be taken into account when devising school dress codes. The proposed prohibition on headscarves in France, as with laws in some Muslim countries that force girls to wear headscarves in schools, violates this principle.

It's the opposite of the US debate. In France - they suggested a law that violated religious freedom, in the US scenario, the proposed legislation violates gender rights to allegedly promote religious freedom.

Congress, in an attempt to be even less “fair and balanced” than cable news, has decided to take women out of the debate altogether. In a hearing with the House Oversight Committee, Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was asked by ranking Democratic committee member, Elijah Cummings (D-MD) to include the testimony of a woman. Issa refused, making the claim that,

“As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

From Think Progress:

And so Cummings, along with the Democratic women on the panel, took their request to the hearing room, demanding that Issa consider the testimony of a female college student. But the California congressman insisted that the hearing should focus on the rules’ alleged infringement on “religious liberty,” not contraception coverage, and denied the request. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) walked out of the hearing in protest of his decision, citing frustration over the fact that the first panel of witnesses consisted only of male religious leaders against the rule. Holmes Norton said she will not return, calling Issa’s chairmanship an “autocratic regime.”

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/16/gop-kicks-women-out-of-contraception-debate-says-its-about-religion-not-women-video/

In making it about religious freedom - the male congressional leaders have resolved to have religious freedom take precedence over gender equality. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects people based on gender and race:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
The right, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to be treated the same, legally, as others in the same situation. If a law discriminates between one group of people and another, the government must have a rational basis for doing so. A law that discriminates on the basis of a supect classification -- that is, it makes a distinction based on race, gender, or another trait that has historically resulted in discriminatory treatment -- is constitutional only if there is a very compelling reason for the distinction.

Unfortunately, there is still no amendment under the US Constitution that grants Women equal rights to Men.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

The ERA in Congress
112th Session (2011-2012)

On June 22, 2011, ERA ratification bills were introduced in the Senate (S.J.Res. 21) by lead sponsor Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and in the House of Representatives (H.J. Res. 69) by lead sponsor Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY).

On Mar. 8, 2011, Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced H.J.Res 47, which would remove the ERA’s ratification deadline and make it part of the Constitution when three more states ratify.

And...

In an interview with California Lawyer, Scalia said that the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination. Such protections are up to the legislative branch, he said.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html

And... the 19th Amendment, which came into being to grant Women the right to vote, but no other protections:

19th Amendment
Though the Constitution originally made no mention of a woman's right to vote, it was implied by society — women simply did not have the right. The 14th Amendment actually made things worse, by codifying the suffrage right to men only, when its Second Clause punished the denial of suffrage to men (though this still did not officially deny women the right). As early as 1848, groups met to discuss how to further women's rights, and the franchise, it was decided, was the best place to start. But America was not ready, and the suffragists, as they were called, were branded as immoral.

Famous women's rights leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton tried to make a stand after the Civil War, to have the language of the 14th Amendment include women, though the issue was thought too volatile by most, and passage of the amendment was thought to be in grave jeopardy if such a provision were included. Anthony later used the 15th Amendment as rationale for voting in a New York election, and though she was tried and fined for voting, the ordeal proved an impetus for the eventual guarantee of voting rights for women. By 1918, about half the states had granted women full or partial voting rights; the stature gained by women involved in the temperance movement also helped push the suffragist movement along. The support of women to the war effort convinced many more, even President Woodrow Wilson, who had been staunchly opposed to a federal suffrage amendment. On June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920 (441 days).

Finally..from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment:

The political momentum changed during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. At the 1980 Republican National Convention, the Republican Party platform was amended to qualify its support for the ERA. The most prominent opponent of the ERA was Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican.[6] Critchlow and Stachecki argue that public opinion in key states shifted against the ERA as opponents, operating on the local and state levels, won over the public to their side. The state legislators in battleground states followed public opinion in defeating the ERA. Many ERA supporters blamed their defeat on sinister undemocratic special forces, especially the insurance industry and right-wing organizations, suggesting they funded an opposition that subverted the democratic process and the will of the pro-ERA majority.[23] They argued that while the public face of the anti-ERA movement was Phyllis Schlafly and her STOP ERA organization, there were other important groups in the opposition as well, such as the powerful National Council of Catholic Women and (until 1973) the AFL–CIO labor unions. Critchlow and Stachecki say the anti-ERA movement was based on strong support among Southern whites, evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics, including both men and women.[24]

So you see, from that last paragraph there is a history of religion getting in the way of gender or rights of gender. At the heart of the culture war over gender rights, is religion.

Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes .--One value that both clauses of the religion section serve is to enforce governmental neutrality in deciding controversies arising out of religious disputes. Schism sometimes develops within churches or between a local church and the general church, resulting in secession or expulsion of one faction or of the local church. A dispute over which body is to have control of the property of the church will then often be taken into the courts. It is now established that both religion clauses prevent governmental inquiry into religious doctrine in settling such disputes, and instead require courts simply to look to the decision-making body or process in the church and to give effect to whatever decision is officially and properly made.

For more on this - go here:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1


For me, it's simple really - if religious doctrine imposes or interferes with the basic rights of an individual human being to seek shelter, safety, health, liberty, happiness without unduly harming another, those religious doctrines should be rendered null and void. The rights of the individual human supersede the rights of the religious group who suffers no physical, emotional or lasting harm from ignoring what the individual is doing or in aiding them. In short? I don't care if it is against your beliefs or morale code if it doesn't physically harm you or hurt you, suck it up and deal. That's what it means to be a MATURE ADULT. Stop being a whiny cry-baby. Grow up. I literally said something to this effect to a woman who told me that same-sex marriage was against her religious beliefs. "You can ignore it. It doesn't affect you. Your interference hurts someone else. So how is that good? Your behavior sounds self-centered and immature to me. These are my friends that you are hurting and they aren't doing anything to you. In short, you offend me. Do I have the right to punish you for it?" It didn't go over well. So I try not to talk about this too much. Foot in mouth disease and all that.

I've always looked a human rights the way my Granny did...if the other fellow isn't imposing it on me or interfering with me, they can do what they want. I don't care. Do no harm.

So an affiliate of a Catholic organization has to pay for their employees use of contraceptives. Big whoop. They get a government grant. If they don't want to pay? They don't get the government grant. That's life. Let the bloody Pope give you grants. Deal. Far less unfair than not permitting an employee to use insurance to get a contraceptive. Also, hello, it prevents abortions.

I don't believe religious freedom should interfere with individual rights. Evil is when you impose your beliefs and values onto another without any regard to their dignity and value as a person.
Religion in of itself isn't bad or evil, its how human beings interpret the doctrine and traditions and rules of a religion and use those rules/doctrines/traditions as an excuse to abuse their power or inflict harm on others that is evil. The Pope abuses his power. As long as he does so, he can't be a good man or leader. He is forever tainted. Religious leaders who do that are little more than dictators. With great power comes great responsibility after all.

Comments

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I'm of two minds about all of the religious stuff going on lately in US politics - I think it's great that so many of your politicians seemingly have read Margaret Atwood, but unfortunately they seem to have mistaken The Handmaid's Tale for a how-to manual.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

LOL! Not the brightest bulbs on the planet, are they? Don't suppose we can send them up your way? If this continues...I may consider retiring up your way or maybe Australia, its further away, although they have funky politicians too.
(That is assuming of course I ever win the lottery.)

[sophist.livejournal.com]

A few quick comments on minor points; I mostly agree with you:

1. You say "when it became apparent that the government could pull funding from a Catholic Hospital, University, or other affiliated organization if it failed to recognize or perform a same-sex marriage." Employers can be compelled to recognize marriages. However, religious institutions can't be compelled to *perform* any ceremony which goes against their doctrines. I think you agree and that the sentence just came out wrong.

2. "Contraception has likewise become an issue in regards to affiliated Catholic organizations who do not want the government to force them to provide contraception or pay for it."

This is a source of substantial confusion. First, no employer pays for contraception. It's the health insurance policy which pays. In fact, the employer doesn't even pay for the insurance policy. In standard economic theory, employee benefits like insurance are considered in lieu of wages. Thus, the employee pays either way.

As for Catholic hospitals, I do not believe there's any rule compelling them to provide contraception or abortion. It's possible that there could be such a rule if they accept federal funds, but I don't think there is under current law.

3. "In our laws - we provide the individual states with the ability to determine religious practice, we also, allow each religion to determine it's own practices and laws." This was true originally, but not for the last 70 years or so. Under current law, the rules are nationwide.

4. "The Federal Government passed a law abolishing slavery. The Southern States had to abide by the Federal government's law. They didn't get to decide on their own. Furious - they went to War. Actually the Civil War wasn't just about that ruling, it was about a lot of things...mostly economic and related to the industrial revolution. So that's a simplistic explanation."

Other way around: the South seceded and then we abolished slavery. And the war was very much about slavery; that was the express reason the Southern states gave for seceding. The idea that the War was about economic issues was a lie cooked up by Southerners after the War to mitigate what they did. It was very successful and was taught in school for a long time, but it's now known to be false.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Employers can be compelled to recognize marriages. However, religious institutions can't be compelled to *perform* any ceremony which goes against their doctrines. I think you agree and that the sentence just came out wrong.

Oh I do agree. I had to explain that to a lot of people during the whole debate regarding Same-Sex Marriage in NY. Oddly? The legislature in NY was so afraid that "religious organizations would be compelled to do it" - that they put a sentence in the law that stated that you could not compel a religious org to do so. Which was blatantly unnecessary, but the vast majority didn't see it that way and still don't.

This is a source of substantial confusion. First, no employer pays for contraception. It's the health insurance policy which pays. In fact, the employer doesn't even pay for the insurance policy. In standard economic theory, employee benefits like insurance are considered in lieu of wages. Thus, the employee pays either way.

Not sure about this. And it may vary from state to state? But the employer does pay for the policy, in my company - I'm union, the employer pays for my health-insurance, while I have a co-payment. I pay and the employer pays.
Contraception is "covered under the policy" - so if I went to a gyno and got a prescription for the pill - under a separate portion of my insurance policy for "drugs and prescriptions" - known as a "prescription plan" - the prescription for birth control may be covered. Likewise, a medical procedure such as a hystrectmy (sp?), vasectomy, or injection into the arm...would also be covered under the plan - the insurance company pays, but it charges the employed a rate based on what is covered within that plan. In some plans,
they will put birth control or contraception outside the plan. So that if the employee wants it - the employee must pay either the full price (the insurance company doesn't cover it) or the employee pays a higher co-payment, to off-set the health insurance company's loss - since the employer refuses to pay that cost. (ie. a PPO - you go outside your HMO to see a more expensive doctor or specialist.)

And you're right it's confusing. Every state seems to have different rules on it. I used to work for Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield and remember thinking after I left - health insurance companies are evil. LOL! (Well, they are - they are bartering health care for a profit. If you never get sick and continue to pay, they make money. If you get sick...they lose money. So from their perspective it only pays to insure people who never see the doctor or need it.)

[sophist.livejournal.com]

My point about payments for health insurance was probably a bit too cryptic. Yes, on the surface the employer pays. However, an economist would say that all benefits are indistinguishable from wages; if we abolished health insurance tomorrow, the money "paid" by the employer would go to the employees in the form of wages. This is standard theory. In that sense, it's never the "employer's" money, it always should be seen as the employee's despite what happens on the surface.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah. True. No disagreement on that point. Although it is still an issue and still a cost that employers wish to control. (I have a background in Compensation and Employee Benefits along with Health Insurance...LOL! I know just enough to make me dangerous.)

Employer paid health insurance is considered an employee benefit and as result, a cost. It's not one that the employer can claim on taxes though, as far as I know. I can't remember to be honest - that may have changed.
During the current economic crisis many employers wished to limit that coverage or eliminate it entirely much as they did with 401 K contributions - in order to save money.

Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield even came up with packages, cheaper ones, that the employer could provide to their employees that cost less money and provided less coverage. The employee could choose to opt out of coverage at any time and buy their own or contribute a higher monthly amount, taking on the bulk of the cost.

In return - you'd think the employees wage would go up. Not true. Often the employees wage stayed fixed, particularly in the current economic climate.
Most of our union negotiations are about "health care coverage". Our employer would like to reduce it or do away with it completely. So that we have to pay 100 -200 dollars a month for coverage as opposed to either nothing (I consider my union dues health care co-payment), or $68 a month.
When I first started working, health care coverage was a benefit, that I only had to contribute $10 copayment to a doctor, as time wore on, I had to contribute to the coverage - about 1%-3% of my salary, that has gradually gone up for many employees.

The Obama Health Care Act - does not permit employers to either remove health care coverage as a benefit or to not pay it. They have to provide coverage to their employees. Which of course is an economic burden for them.
Particularly smaller businesses.

So yes, it is the employers money. And they don't want to give it as a benefit to their employees, any more than they want to contribute to 401 K any longer. They are attempting to cut costs. That's why so many US corporations have done outsourcing to places like India, Ireland, etc..because those countries do not require the employer provide health care benefits. They employer only has to pay the wage - so the workforce is cheaper.

This argument which is disguised as being about religious freedom is in reality about economics.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

As for Catholic hospitals, I do not believe there's any rule compelling them to provide contraception or abortion. It's possible that there could be such a rule if they accept federal funds, but I don't think there is under current law.

No, not now. (Sorry wasn't clearer) But the Obama Act or National Health Care Act has a clause that may do so - which is what the debate in Congress is about.

Same with employers and health insurance companies. Currently they are not compelled to provide coverage for contraception, but the new ACT would compel them.

I admittedly have not read the specific clause in the act that imposes this measure (nor really want to), but if this were not the case - the current debate makes no sense. If it weren't an issue, why wast everyone's time including their own debating it? Not to mention making the US look like misogynistic idiots to everyone around the world in the process? (Not that the GOP (current leadership regime) doesn't tend to do that....)

Here's what I read on one of the various religious blogs: "Now, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri proposes that any employer — religious or anti-religious, for that matter — should have the “right” to refuse coverage to its employees of any services, treatments or medications it disagrees with."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/23/it%E2%80%99s-not-about-religious-freedom


And the war was very much about slavery; that was the express reason the Southern states gave for seceding. The idea that the War was about economic issues was a lie cooked up by Southerners after the War to mitigate what they did. It was very successful and was taught in school for a long time, but it's now known to be false.

I made the correction above. But I do have a quibble...it was about economics. The North had found a way with its factories and industrialization to reduce its labor force. It could make products cheaper and with less effort. The South which was not industrialized, relied on slave labor to produce and harvest. They didn't have to pay their workers. For a while, before the industrial revolution, they were more prosperous than the Northern states, because of this. The North decided to abolish all slavery. There went the South's free labor force. It's an actually still an economic issue in many areas of the world. US corporations still send products to sweat shops, where slave labor is used and the products are made at a cheaper price. Also "female slavery" where women are bought and sold as sex slaves - is about economic gain. (See S2 of the Wire for an example.)

So slavery was always about economics. People basically put money and their own financial gain over kindness and caring about others. And unfortunately, the human race still does that. There is still slavery in the world - again for economic reasons.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Slavery was, of course, an economic system, so in that general sense yes. But the dispute was specifically about slavery per se. Here, for example, is a passage from the Texas Declaration of Secession:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

As you can see, there's a strong social/moral cast to the argument, aside from any economic point.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

True. No argument there.

I think my original post stated that "economics" is an overly simplistic explanation. And that's true. It's equally true that racism is. Or sexism. I think the motivations behind slavery are incredibly complicated. None of them are remotely justifiable. Enslaving another human being (and sentient creature - I read too much sci-fi) is evil. You can't justify it. There is no justification.

[gingerwall.livejournal.com]

I don't believe religious freedom should interfere with individual rights. Evil is when you impose your beliefs and values onto another without any regard to their dignity and value as a person.

I agree with everything you said, but especially that.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Just a few comments here, not trying to get into a debate but:

I may be wrong - but I don't believe that the religious freedom is a right in many countries, its why so many people immigrated to the US - the right to practice the religion of their choice.

That was true once, and it still is true in far too many parts of the world; but there are also many countries where it's not. If you compare the US to most western* European countries, it's arguably (or at least it seems that way to an outsider) one of the countries where religion has the most inflence on government if you look at the way it seems to seep into every political issue - take the huge debate surrounding issues like abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, women's rights, schools, even environmental questions, etc which may still be contentious in other countries, but where openly religious arguments tend to be given far less weight if they're even brought up at all. Or maybe I'm just showing my secular Scandinavian ass. :) But to me, the idea of a leading politician using religious arguments to win an election in 2012 just seems... well, like something out of a satirical novel. It's unfathomable. That doesn't mean we don't have religious freedom; it just means that it doesn't include the freedom to persecute others.

* Which is a bit of an arbitrary concept not entirely free of iffy historical implications, but...

I don't believe religious freedom should interfere with individual rights. Evil is when you impose your beliefs and values onto another without any regard to their dignity and value as a person.

Exactly. Or putting it another way, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. And BRAVO to your entire segment there. I just wish it didn't need saying.

Off topic - I just watched The Artist, and it's FANTASTIC. Go see it if you haven't already. Between that and Hugo, 2011 seems to have been the best year for silent movies since 1928.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

That was true once, and it still is true in far too many parts of the world; but there are also many countries where it's not. If you compare the US to most western* European countries, it's arguably (or at least it seems that way to an outsider) one of the ..

Fair enough. I went back to clarify what I meant above. It's really the Eastern European, Middle East, and Communist Countries that impose it.
Although I'm not sure "communism" is the correct term.

But to me, the idea of a leading politician using religious arguments to win an election in 2012 just seems... well, like something out of a satirical novel. It's unfathomable. That doesn't mean we don't have religious freedom; it just means that it doesn't include the freedom to persecute others.

Oh we are in agreement. Trust me, many Americans feel exactly the same way.
The only difference is? We have to deal with it.

It's going to bite Romny in the butt though - since he's Mormon, and the Fundamentalist Right Wing Conservatives hate Mormons almost as much as they hate Muslims. They aren't the brightest bulbs on the planet, the right-wing Christian conservatives. Highly annoying actually. Can we ship them over to you guys? Please? Come one...you'd have fun with them.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

So that no one will be confused, no Federal law was passed abolishing slavery before the Civil War. The Southern States left, because they felt that such a law was inevitable in the future, though not at all an immediate danger. Even if a law had been passed, right before the war the Supreme Court was controlled by southerners who would have immediately overturned it. In fact the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court used the court to attempt to block efforts of the Federal government to use military force against the seceded States. Not surprisingly Lincoln's government decided to ignore him despite the Constitution.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I fixed it. You are correct that statement was confusing. I blame the jumping around through amendments on the internet and my foggy brain. ;-)

Thanks.