?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Governmental policies about religion - The online computery journal thingy of a turtle

Mar. 20th, 2010

08:31 pm - Governmental policies about religion

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:nefaria
Date:March 21st, 2010 04:56 am (UTC)
(Link)
1. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act:
Those who oppose the Act have interpreted it as an attempt to obligate religious hospitals to either "do abortions or close", while FOCA supporters argue that existing conscience clause laws would protect religious hospitals. In early 2009, Catholic News Service asserted that in its interpretation of the legislation, FOCA neither poses any such risk to Catholic hospitals, nor would require religious hospitals to participate in abortion. Opponents, however, assert that conscience clauses are weak and easily reinterpreted, and do not explicitly allow religious hospitals to ban the abortion procedure within the hospital.
So it looks like FOCA advocates say it won't and many FOCA opponents say it will. The lawyers will get to decide, and the abortion advocates always seem to get the best lawyers.

2., 3., 5. Clearly you feel that discrimination trumps religious freedom of association. So if the government manages to poke its nose in anywhere, religion must flee. That was my argument on nonsanity's LJ. I'll leave it an open question whether a particular instance of discrimination is justifiable or not, but the religious person's ability to discriminate is taken away in all cases whenever the government says so.

4. My college had to create its own loan plan because the Fed refused to lend to them. The rate was higher than the Federal rate because it was not subsidized by taxpayers. I am OK with this, but it did provide an example where I personally suffered because of my religious freedom.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:rikchik
Date:March 21st, 2010 01:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Your college wasn't unsubsidized because it was friendly to your religion, it was because it was unfriendly to all other religions. Why should non-Christian taxpayers pay for a college that requires Christian services? Would you still think it appropriate if most funding of this kind went to Hindu schools?

Likewise, making it legal for a landlord to discriminate against someone based on their beliefs rather than their actions is being religiously unfriendly and should disturb Christians too.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:xydexx
Date:March 21st, 2010 01:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Clearly you feel that discrimination trumps religious freedom of association. So if the government manages to poke its nose in anywhere, religion must flee.


No, it means if religion tries to poke its nose into government, they can't. Religion isn't "fleeing" anywhere it shouldn't have been in the first place. It's called separation of church and state. This isn't God's country, it's a free one.



Exercising your religious freedom doesn't mean you get to trample over everyone else's.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:octan
Date:March 21st, 2010 09:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think he's talking about the fact that government is gradually taking over things that didn't use to have anything to do with government and, thus, weren't required to restrict their affiliation with religion. And he sort of has a point, but as someone said earlier it works both ways. It's just that there aren't any explicitly atheist organizations that the government has tried muscling in on yet.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:nefaria
Date:March 21st, 2010 11:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, that was my intention. Unfortunately I did not make a good choice in picking the right to discriminate against others as a form of religious freedom, so xydexx does have a point there.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:q_pheevr
Date:March 21st, 2010 07:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
4. My college had to create its own loan plan because the Fed refused to lend to them. The rate was higher than the Federal rate because it was not subsidized by taxpayers. I am OK with this, but it did provide an example where I personally suffered because of my religious freedom.

You didn't suffer. You wanted something (a religious postsecondary education) that the government could not reasonably be expected to provide or subsidize, and so you had to pay for it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:octan
Date:March 21st, 2010 09:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So if the government manages to poke its nose in anywhere, religion must flee.

Hate to break it to you, but that's always the way it's been. The government already does plenty of things that are openly contrary to some non-Christian religions. Having an army, for one. There are a goodly number of religions that are explicitly pacifist; how do you think they feel that something like a quarter of all their taxes go towards a department that stockpiles WMDs and shoots people?

Anytime you have a government that's funded by taxes, it's going to be forcing somebody to support stuff they don't believe in. The only other option is anarchy.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)