| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2012 06:18:14 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Some religions don't believe in any surgery at all. Should they not cover surgery in their employees' health plans? |
The Bible clearly prohibits mixing blood, so these same people should be absolutely outraged that Catholic hospitals must have the capability to perform blood transfusions. "Oh, the horror of government trampling our beliefs!" |
Here's how it was explained to me. Imagine:
You're an owner of a vegetarian restaurant and don't think animals should be killed. Now the government passes a law that says all restaurants are required to sell meat. Restaurants can be exempt if they:
1. Only hire vegetarians
2. Only serve vegetarians
So now, you will be required to ask your employees if they are vegetarians and only hire vegetarians. You also cannot serve anyone unless they are vegetarians.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2012 06:27:19 PM · #52 |
A hospital isn't a church. It may be run by a religious organization, but it isn't a church.
Period.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2012 06:27:37 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So a young mother is trying to make ends meet, and the only job available is making sandwiches at the local Chick-Fil-A... Turns out the restaurant chain is owned by a deeply religious person who doesn't believe in birth control and ignores that 99% percent of people in his church use it anyway, so the health plan doesn't offer any form of birth control. |
I didn't know birth control was a right. If I was trying to make ends meet, I'd be happy I had a good paying job with some insurance. There are many others without jobs in America. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 07:25:41 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There you go again with the "it's always been that way" argument. You LOVE that one :) |
So do lawyers... :) We must remember this thread is purely legal in nature. What is constitutional in the United States of America? |
Hence amendments, when they make sense. Thankfully, the history of amendments tends to fall on the side of advancements instead of historical stubborness :) |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 07:32:54 PM · #55 |
| Is is an interesting question to wonder what the next amendment to the constitution will be and whether we will have one in our lifetime. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 07:43:06 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is is an interesting question to wonder what the next amendment to the constitution will be and whether we will have one in our lifetime. |
I thought for a long time the ERA would make it. Now it looks like there's no interest in it anymore. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 08:07:50 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Just because it's sinful" is exactly an excuse to bypass existing rules according to our constitution. No, it does not give the church carte blanche power, but it has been a longstanding constitutional right supported by the courts for the length of our republic. |
Which is why polygamy is legal, right? ...or ritual sacrifice, or forbidding a sick child from seeing a doctor, or barring interracial marriage, or murdering infidels...
"The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice." |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 08:31:07 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I didn't know birth control was a right. |
There are apparently a lot of things you didn't know. The 14th amendment effectively prohibits restrictions on a citizen's personal health decisions (except in the interest of the public at large, of course). For example, you can't avoid vaccination requirements on religious grounds if you're a Seventh Day Adventist, nor can that church prevent citizens from getting vaccinated. The constitutional allowance for free exercise of religious beliefs is balanced against the government's responsibility to pass laws for the safety, health and welfare of its citizens, and the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that public health trumps religious belief. There was never a proposed requirement to USE contraception, only that you can't restrict the personal health decisions of others to satisfy your beliefs.
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 20:40:36. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:29:38 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Just because it's sinful" is exactly an excuse to bypass existing rules according to our constitution. No, it does not give the church carte blanche power, but it has been a longstanding constitutional right supported by the courts for the length of our republic. |
...the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. |
You need to look up the meaning of the phrase "does not give the church carte blanch power". It would have saved you some typing. Wiki says we owe a lot of the constitutional clarity to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Supposedly they have brought 72 cases to the SCOTUS and they have won 47 which is batting over .500.
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 21:33:08. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:34:37 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
For example, you can't avoid vaccination requirements on religious grounds if you're a Seventh Day Adventist, nor can that church prevent citizens from getting vaccinated. |
I don't know what world you live in, but FAR too many kids are not getting their shots on "religious grounds". If what you say is true, why is this happening?
From 2003 to 2007, religious exemptions for kindergartners increased, in some cases doubled or tripled, in 20 of the 28 states that allow only medical or religious exemptions, the AP found. Religious exemptions decreased in three of these states Ă¢€” Nebraska, Wyoming, South Carolina Ă¢€” and were unchanged in five others.
Must be a states thing, but apparently the federal government can't or doesn't make the states follow something like what you said...
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 21:36:50. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:39:11 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wiki says we owe a lot of the constitutional clarity to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Supposedly they have brought 72 cases to the SCOTUS and they have won 47... |
Zero of which involve imposing their personal beliefs upon the decisions of others. You're batting .0000. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:43:31 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wiki says we owe a lot of the constitutional clarity to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Supposedly they have brought 72 cases to the SCOTUS and they have won 47... |
Zero of which involve imposing their personal beliefs upon the decisions of others. You're batting .0000. |
LOL. And I'm sure you are aware of all 72 cases...
BTW, this is an interesting quote from a paper titled "Mandatory Immunization Laws and the Role of Medical, Religious and Philosophical Exemptions".
"However, the U.S.Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of religious exemptions from vaccination requirements."
That seems to stand in stark contrast of your claim above about Seventh Day Adventists. My guess is, as per typical, you are trying to make broad, sweeping claims about something that is only tangentially related. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:43:36 PM · #63 |
I still think people are missing the point.
Catholic charities, hospitals, and even schools, aren't churches. From what I understand, churches still have more power to do as they believe. But even though they are run by religious organizations, they are not churches -- that's not their function.
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 21:43:49. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:49:59 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what world you live in, but FAR too many kids are not getting their shots on "religious grounds"... apparently the federal government can't or doesn't make the states follow something like what you said... |
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, and declared that individual freedom must sometimes be secondary to the common welfare of the people. Some states do offer religious or philosophical exemptions, but they are under no obligation to do so and if a state suspended such exemptions due to a pandemic or other public health issue, the Supreme Court has already ruled that your religious objections would mean precisely squat. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:52:38 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what world you live in, but FAR too many kids are not getting their shots on "religious grounds"... apparently the federal government can't or doesn't make the states follow something like what you said... |
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, and declared that individual freedom must sometimes be secondary to the common welfare of the people. Some states do offer religious or philosophical exemptions, but they are under no obligation to do so and if a state suspended such exemptions due to a pandemic or other public health issue, the Supreme Court has already ruled that your religious objections would mean precisely squat. |
If you look up the ruling on Jacobson v. Massachusetts you will see absolutely no mention of "seventh day adventist" or "religion". Plus it's a ruling that is over 100 years old. Check your sources before you quote off the web... |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:55:20 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I still think people are missing the point.
Catholic charities, hospitals, and even schools, aren't churches. From what I understand, churches still have more power to do as they believe. But even though they are run by religious organizations, they are not churches -- that's not their function. |
Religion and church are non synonymous. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:03:30 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I still think people are missing the point.
Catholic charities, hospitals, and even schools, aren't churches. From what I understand, churches still have more power to do as they believe. But even though they are run by religious organizations, they are not churches -- that's not their function. |
Religion and church are non synonymous. |
Aren't the still using the lemon test? This would pass for hospitals, charities, etc. It doesn't pass for a church. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:12:52 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I didn't know birth control was a right. |
There are apparently a lot of things you didn't know. The 14th amendment effectively prohibits restrictions on a citizen's personal health decisions (except in the interest of the public at large, of course). For example, you can't avoid vaccination requirements on religious grounds if you're a Seventh Day Adventist, nor can that church prevent citizens from getting vaccinated. |
You are wrong. My children are not required to be vaccinated on religious grounds. I signed paperwork.
Birth control isn't a right nor a necessity. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:18:14 PM · #69 |
It isn't just churches who have a problem with this, companies have a problem with this too (see my vegetarian example).
EWTN has files suit against the governent; I'm sure others will follow. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:32:03 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you look up the ruling on Jacobson v. Massachusetts you will see absolutely no mention of "seventh day adventist" or "religion". Plus it's a ruling that is over 100 years old. Check your sources before you quote off the web... |
From YOUR case law link: "[a person] may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities... for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger."
Henning Jacobson was a minister claiming religious exemption from a smallpox vaccination requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, and declared that individual freedom must sometimes be secondary to the common welfare of the people. The age of the case has little bearing on its validity (unless you'd also like to invalidate the Constitution itself for being even older). [whiff] You're still batting .0000. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:40:31 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you look up the ruling on Jacobson v. Massachusetts you will see absolutely no mention of "seventh day adventist" or "religion". Plus it's a ruling that is over 100 years old. Check your sources before you quote off the web... |
From YOUR case law link: "[a person] may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities... for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger."
Henning Jacobson was a minister claiming religious exemption from a smallpox vaccination requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, and declared that individual freedom must sometimes be secondary to the common welfare of the people. The age of the case has little bearing on its validity (unless you'd also like to invalidate the Constitution itself for being even older). [whiff] You're still batting .0000. |
You are every bit the rhetoritician (in the worst sense of the word). I, of course, had seen that sentence already, but read your sentence again. First, it says that one can be compelled to join the army even despite his religious objection. We know from consciencious objectors this is patently false. You also have failed to acknowledge that kids do not get vaccinated because of religious objection every day in this country.
So, ok, I concede to you that one is compelled to get vaccinated despite religious objection every bit as much as one is compelled to join the army despite religious objections. You win! |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:40:41 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You are wrong. My children are not required to be vaccinated on religious grounds. I signed paperwork. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Some states do offer religious or philosophical exemptions, but they are under no obligation to do so and if a state suspended such exemptions due to a pandemic or other public health issue, the Supreme Court has already ruled that your religious objections would mean precisely squat. |
California allows a religious exemption, and that paperwork you signed will indeed opt out of vaccination, however in the event of an outbreak your child would be suspended from school. By Supreme Court ruling (and 1922 reaffirmation), California would be within Constitutional bounds to suspend that exemption in the event of a serious pandemic. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:49:58 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Henning Jacobson was a minister claiming religious exemption from a smallpox vaccination requirement. |
You are such a bullshit liar Shannon. I can't believe you sometimes and the crap you try to pull. Please show me the religious objection...
From the wiki: "During an outbreak of smallpox in 1902, he refused to comply with the town's order for all adults to be vaccinated. He claimed a vaccine had made him seriously ill as a child and had made his son and others sick as well." That doesn't sound like a religious objection to me.
From the actual ruling: "The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person."
BTW, Henning Jacobson was a minister in the Swedish Lutheran Church. Where do the Seventh Day Adventists come into play? And what religious objection do the Lutherans have to vaccination?
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 22:50:39. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:53:40 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are every bit the rhetoritician (in the worst sense of the word). I, of course, had seen that sentence already, but read your sentence again. First, it says that one can be compelled to join the army even despite his religious objection. We know from consciencious objectors this is patently false. You also have failed to acknowledge that kids do not get vaccinated because of religious objection every day in this country. |
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just being stubborn rather than stupid. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts that the state could require individuals to be vaccinated for the common good. Common contemporary vaccination policies require, subject to exemptions, that children receive common vaccinations before entering school, but such exemptions are NOT constitutional requirements. Conscientious objectors may be excluded from service just as women were once excluded from service, and likewise there's nothing precluding the government from suspending that policy if the survival of the nation were at stake. You pointed that out yourself for pete's sake! "He may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his... religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country, and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense." So much for my above assumption of stubbornness.
Interestingly, this quote from Jacobson himself is very relevant to the current issue of one group withholding contraception or other medical treatment from others: Ă¢€œhostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health."
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 23:03:01. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 11:02:02 PM · #75 |
LOL. What good is consciencious objection if it can be overruled in times where the country is at risk (ie. times of war)? I don't buy a word you say. You've gotten so much wrong up to this point your credibility is very low.
1) You said the ruling concerned Seventh Day Adventists. Wrong.
2) You said Jacobson claimed religious exemption. Wrong.
3) You claim that conscription in the army is a good analogy. Obviously not a good argument.
At this point someone with a modicum of respect for civil discourse would admit that the case is a red herring. |
|
