I'm still one that thinks the benefits of freedom to exercise religion outweigh the costs. And yes, one of those costs is that some of the most popular churches is bat ****ing **** crazy. But if we legislate away all of their attempts to show their true craziness, we also undercut people's ability to truly evaluate the entirety of a religion and decide which ideas are worthy.

Religion is a personal choice and you can not force your belives on others. Period. No matter in which sphere of society.

The people being restricted enter into employment contracts with the church or church-owned employers tho

I think this is what Adam Smith referred to as the market's invisible handjob

Doesn't matter beacuse it interferes with basic human rights.

Maybe, although when you talk about better practical outcomes, I have to ask, better for whom? Anyway, I don't think the end justifies the means.

The religion also has a basic right to forbear from purchasing a package that includes things that they morally object to. That's basic as in, like, the first amendment. The basic human right on the other hand isn't using contraception, it's having it provided through a healthcare plan paid for by the employer.

And you're right that this is very close. It effects the non-religious who are employed at a hospital for reasons other than that hospital's religious affiliation. It adversely affects the health of those who can't afford to pay for contraceptives on their own. The whole practice and the belief behind it is abhorrent and couldn't be more out of touch. But I think that for a people to truly evaluate their beliefs and choices of religion, we need to let those religions expose their destructive sides whenever stepping in can be avoided.

Better overall outcomes for society.

When it comes to something like the end being - "People can't be forced* to give blowjobs to their employer" and the means being - "I use force to restrict an employer from demanding sexual favours from their employees" I'm fine with it.

Something as general as "I don't believe the end justifies the means" is exactly what I'm talking about. I view it as a form of extremism that would end up with us living in a pretty horrible world.


* I use "forced" in the sense that while they seem to have a choice there are many other factors in their life (like providing food and shelter to their children) that make them desperate.

It might be a waste of money, but that's a different argument.

I don't have enough data to know for sure if it saves money. It's not searching anything, it's simply requiring a test before you *get* something for free. But I see where a dangerous precedent could be set (drug test before getting drivers license, or using a public road).

My main point was how the topic brought up, being opposed to it isn't at all counter to being for small government. Of course, the Republicans, particularly the Rick Santorum branch, love big government (as long as it suits his desires).

I don't have strong opinions either way on this (aside from it is a giant waste of money) - but I'm not sure I agree with the premise that its getting something for free. Many people are using welfare programs after some number of years where they were working and paying taxes into that program.

Ugh, Drugsarebad is crushing the thread unfortunately.

This could be said about *any* government spending. Lockheed Martin is just getting money they paid in taxes. Something like unemployment, social security, or medicare seem more in line with this "we paid into it" line, even though it's not even really true either.

OK, and I'll even grant you sincerely do believe the 1st amendment grants you some sort of right to never indirectly pay for something you don't approve of for religious reasons. You're wrong as a matter of law and that principle will take you some pretty weird places if you follow it strictly, but whatever.

I hope you can understand that Republicans do not believe in that principle. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. The Catholic Church opposed the war in Iraq. Their taxes pay for those things. Not even a hint of scuffle. This was just an attempt to fire up the culture wars but it backfired.

sards- Just to be clear, you're an anarchist and you also oppose child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, etc., right?

It'd be pretty close, I think. Not all indirect payments are one and the same. For instance, tax dollars funding a war is completely unavoidable because no mess of a system of tax exemptions could satisfy everybody that religiously objects to something the U.S. government does. This one, though, was crafted to be an indirect payment for the purpose of stopping employers from denying this coverage, some based on religious objections.

Either way, no disagreement that the Republicans don't believe in the principle of religious freedom, or general freedom of expression. When the issue is flag burning, or ground zero mosques, or whatever, not only are they not standing up for religious freedom - their leading the charge against it. Nobody says a word about religious freedom when the issue is Native Americans using peyote in a private age old ceremony. And all of those are unquestionably more direct infringements of religious freedom than the law in question here. That's why it still makes me sick to kinda sorta agree with their position on something, because these same religious freedom crusaders only give a **** when its their religious values in question. Part of me will always just want to say **** you to the Catholic church and support this law just out of fairness to people of other faiths who have had their actual personal free exercise of religion impeded over the years by this same crowd.

I can't believe how stupid this issue is. The contraceptives mandate is stupid. The religious liberty argument against it is stupid. The birth control is for sluts argument is stupid. The AZ law is stupid. The reaction against the AZ law is stupid. It's like everyone is struggling to come up with the worst arguments imaginable for their positions.

All sex is iffy, that's why the Virgin Mary was a virgin, and why nuns are not topless go-go dancers in their spare time. There is no need for the physical discourtesy of sex at all as there are devices which milk men and these can be used to extract the swimmers without any pain or unpleasant bending exercises.

Yeah, pretty much.

As it should be. The employer is in a position of being a buyer of labor, and should have all the advantages that a buyer has over a seller in other types of exchanges.

But as usual, it's complicated by the fact that government makes rules which tilt the playing field even further in favor of the employer. Instead of making counter rules to tilt things back, we should be repealing the ones that tilted it so much in the first place.

Ideally decisions about employer provided health insurance and what it covers are between the employer and the employee alone.

The solution is to make it easier for more people to become self-employed, and to employ others, by removing restrictions that should never have been made in the first place, not by imposing even more of them.

I think the bolded is you pulling things out of your arse.

Ive worked for three businesses that have gone under. I got paid every day for months, while every day for months the employer was losing money until he finally went bankrupt.

Every employer isn't some multi-millionaire. Something like >60% of employers do less than 500k in revenue and >80% employ less than 20 workers. These employers are often putting themselves on the line, on a gamble, and failure rates for small businesses are north of 60% in many states.

Thats hardly an advantage over an employee who puts nothing on the line and walks home with $$ in his pocket regardless of whether the gamble works out or not.

I'd be curious to hear a 'trip report' on this. I currently live in CT/work in NY. I often ponder moving somewhere more conservative and wonder how much it would really effect my life.

How different do you find the culture. When we hear these crazy laws in Arizona... do you experience in your daily lifes interactions with people who support these laws? Do you argue with people constantly or just have to keep quiet about a bunch of stuff?

Serious question to anyone who knows... are insurance companies that service Catholic based institutions having to modify their basic plans for these clients? I know for many insurance plans the birth control is covered standard. So are they removing this coverage for Catholic businesses? Do the people pay a lower premium since their insurance covers less?

Just a thought- What if you worked for a company and the head of the company became a Christian Scientist? He now says that its employees shouldn't be prescribed any medicine. I wonder how many anti-Obama people would be supportive of their employers being able to tell them what kind of coverage their insurance can provide them? What if their employers want to sign off on what illness can be treated? You get an STD... sorry, you're immoral, we're not gonna treat it.

What if you're working for a Catholic Institution and it turns out that one of your children is gay. They then want to deny health coverage to your sinful child? As far as I'm concerned its the same principle.

It shouldn't really matter if its long standing. You don't get to qualify others religious beliefs.

you've distorted the truth into such a caricature that it has no passing resemblence to reality. You have a career in right wing radio!

No one is asking for free contraception.

.