[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-February-15, 21:48, said:

Religious people often make the same complaint about scientists. What they don't understand is that science treats everything as provisional, subject to revision as we learn new things. We call some things "laws" for convenience, because we've gotten so much evidence that they're pretty reliable, but we don't actually consider them absolute. E.g. we still refer to Newton's Law of Gravity, even though it's actually been refined by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Science is about learning and refining knowledge; it is not divine relevation.

Quote

I'm not sure what this has to do with church-related hospitals and colleges providing contraception in their medical plans, though.

Maybe not a lot, but the Catholic clergy are out of touch. Catholics do use contraception.

[mike777]

Lot of Catholics use heart medicines,statins also, not sure why those are not free.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2012-February-16, 18:55, said:

Lot of Catholics use heart medicines,statins also, not sure why those are not free.

What is "free" (included in insurance) and "not free" (not included in insurance) is not the issue here, at least not for me. It is the silliness and the hypocrisy of the RC Church's stance on contraceptives. It's become ther "thing" and what everyone associates them with. Perhaps they should use their media exposure to highlight something good about the church, about Jesus' words, or whatever it is they stand for besides anti-abortion anti-contraception.

[Winstonm]

phil_20686, on 2012-February-15, 08:40, said:

You claimed something was demonstrably false, when it was obviously impossible for it to be demonstrably false, yet I am to be castigated for absurd reasoning.

Extraordinary claims do require extra ordinary evidence, but I would argue that such evidence exists: how about http://en.wikipedia....acle_of_the_Sun . It seems hard to see how evidence can be more compelling than an apparent impossibility seen by 50000 odd people, and apparently arranged by three tiny children. Well documented reports of miraculous healings are almost blase. To reason from the starting point that such things are impossible, and attempt ever more absurd rationalisations to avoid the obvious conclusion that God has been breaking (or bending) physical laws for generations.

"Apparently genocidal, racist, sexist...." etc is a straw man. For lots of reasons - but you are a clever guy I'm sure you knew that. - Not going to blame a man for a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric now and again.

If god has been working miracles for generations, why is it seemingly impossible to demonstrate objective, testable evidence of those miracles? In the New Testament, it is said that anything asked in the name of Jesus by a believer would be done. Why can we not get a believer (or two or three) in a testable environment and have them call on god in the name of Jesus to regrow and amputee's limb?

I submit it cannot be done for a simple reason - there is no being there to hear or answer these prayers,

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-16, 19:43, said:

... the issue here, at least not for me... is the silliness and the hypocrisy of the RC Church's stance on contraceptives.

It seems to me that the RCC is entitled to its stance, regardless of the silliness and hypocrisy. As someone who believes that my Freedom of Religion is, in fact, Freedom From Religion, I do not think the government should be telling the RCC what it must do in this regard.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-16, 19:43, said:

What is "free" (included in insurance) and "not free" (not included in insurance) is not the issue here, at least not for me. It is the silliness and the hypocrisy of the RC Church's stance on contraceptives. It's become ther "thing" and what everyone associates them with. Perhaps they should use their media exposure to highlight something good about the church, about Jesus' words, or whatever it is they stand for besides anti-abortion anti-contraception.

I do think what is free or forced to be free is the issue, not whether God exists or not or if you dont like the church leadership.

As for the Catholic Church, yes they tie sex and marriage with procreation in a big big way.

Agree with your point that the church pews are full of hypocrits and sinners.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2012-February-16, 19:52, said:

Agree with your point that the church pews are full of hypocrits and sinners.

Not so much the pews as the pulpits. Don't get me wrong, there are some priests who are trying to do good, but the hierarchy are out of touch and obsessed with women's sexuality and with their need to control it. Most Catholics consider them irrelevant -- which they are.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2012-February-16, 19:51, said:

It seems to me that the RCC is entitled to its stance, regardless of the silliness and hypocrisy. As someone who believes that my Freedom of Religion is, in fact, Freedom From Religion, I do not think the government should be telling the RCC what it must do in this regard.

I guess I wish the RCC would make a better showing of themselves. Most of my relatives are members. Even I, back in the mists of time...

Anyway the RCC has to obey the law and any regulations pertaining to such. Here I think that all the Catholic adoption agencies have had to close because the law said that they could not discriminate against homosexual couples trying to adopt. Talk about losing sight of the big picture -- what do they care about more, children who need loving parents or who does what to whom when they are in private? Clearly requiring celibacy of a group of people is the way to keep sex their top priority.

Do keep in mind, Bill, that you are not entirely enjoying Freedom From Religion. You are subsidising it with your hard-earned tax dollars. At least you have it better than we do here, where the state pays for faith-based schools!

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-16, 20:27, said:

I guess I wish the RCC would make a better showing of themselves.

As someone who grew up RC (altar boy, Catholic school, etc) and now believes that The Church is one of the most dangerous institutions on the planet, I actually enjoy seeing them make themselves look bad.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2012-February-16, 23:24, said:

As someone who grew up RC (altar boy, Catholic school, etc) and now believes that The Church is one of the most dangerous institutions on the planet, I actually enjoy seeing them make themselves look bad.

I think maybe you are right. I must be mad -- my Catholic school had one of the infamous paedophiles. He was transferred to another parish.

[Winstonm]

If there is an absolute morality, what was immoral in the Dark Ages has to still be immoral in the 21st century, irrespective of any new understanding of mankind.

Talk about painting yourself into a Dark Ages corner...

[blackshoe]

Or turn it around. What is immoral today was immoral in the Dark Ages, irrespective of whether they did it.

The problem is that you're actually talking about two different things: what is moral, and what people recognize is moral.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-17, 09:17, said:

Or turn it around. What is immoral today was immoral in the Dark Ages, irrespective of whether they did it.

The problem is that you're actually talking about two different things: what is moral, and what people recognize is moral.

Are you suggesting that YOU know the differnce and that the countless billions, including all humans who ever lived, but whose views on morality differed from yours, are/were wrong?

If not, then how can you claim that there is an absolute morality?

If so, then maybe ask yourself why you are so privileged and the rest of us are so inferior to you?

This is the problem with those who claim to know what absolute morality is: overweening conceit. Let me stress: I am not accusing any poster on this thread of overweening conceit...that was a comment aimed at religious (or any) figure who claims to know absolute morality. Of course, if that description fits a reader, the my views would apply, as far as I am concerned, to that reader.

If you admit that you don't know what absolute morality is, how can you be sure that it exists?

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2012-February-17, 09:33, said:

Are you suggesting that YOU know the differnce and that the countless billions, including all humans who ever lived, but whose views on morality differed from yours, are/were wrong?

No.

mikeh, on 2012-February-17, 09:33, said:

If not, then how can you claim that there is an absolute morality?

I made no such claim.

mikeh, on 2012-February-17, 09:33, said:

If so, then maybe ask yourself why you are so privileged and the rest of us are so inferior to you?

Be careful, Mike. You're heading into a morass. Don't get yourself stuck.

mikeh, on 2012-February-17, 09:33, said:

If you admit that you don't know what absolute morality is, how can you be sure that it exists?

How can you be sure it doesn't?

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-17, 11:08, said:

No.


I made no such claim.


Be careful, Mike. You're heading into a morass. Don't get yourself stuck.


How can you be sure it doesn't?

Where I come from, it is the person who claims that an affirmative proposition is true who ought to be pointing to evidence in support of it. However, I appreciate that religious believers reject that idea...they have to, else their belief structure becomes exposed for what it is.

As for the morass, neither of us are heading there.......you don't assert that you know what absolute morality is, and not even whether it exists, so you aren't guilty of the claim to superiority that would be inherent in claiming either. Since I have never claimed special knowledge, I don't see how I am heading for any intellectual morass. My credo, when it comes to matters in respect of which no evidence exists, is not that I 'know' the answer....it is that there is currently no basis upon which to accept that a particular affirmative answer exists.

In the absence of evidence for a proposition, I prefer, on a tentative basis, to assume that the proposition is not true. But, should evidence in support of the proposition become available, I will rethink my position, and may change it if the evidence is persuasive.

That is, as others have suggested, one and perhaps 'the' difference between religious thought and evidence-based reasoning.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2012-February-16, 18:55, said:

Lot of Catholics use heart medicines,statins also, not sure why those are not free.

Are you saying those medicines aren't included in medical insurance plans that meet the government requirements?

[mike777]

barmar, on 2012-February-17, 14:22, said:

Are you saying those medicines aren't included in medical insurance plans that meet the government requirements?

I am saying they are not free, believe me...I pay alot for them even with insurance.

I mean if they are suppose to be free, including no copay or increase in ins payments, ok.


--

It still seems wierd if a catholic school gets some federal money for say research, the fed govt gets to pile on thousands if not millions of pages of regulations and mandates including those that go against church teachings such as birth control. ON top of that it can require its insurance company to hand out free birth control at the expense of the insurance company.

That just seems such a huge power for the central govt to have. Again I wonder where are the limits of its power in the name of helping people through mandates.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2012-February-17, 14:48, said:

I am saying they are not free, believe me...I pay alot for them even with insurance.

I mean if they are suppose to be free, including no copay or increase in ins payments, ok.

Are you sure your insurance plan meets all the requirements of the ACA? The act requires that plans provide at least 10 "Essential Health Benefits", and one of these is prescription drug coverage. The one that I believe is used to require female birth control is preventive services -- avoiding unwanted pregnancy is viewed as preventive care.

That said, I don't think the ACA requires that everything be free. Prescription drug plans usually require the patient to pay a small percentage (around 15%), until they reach their deductible limit. But I don't think the distinction between free and percentage would matter in the RCC's objection to the contraception requirement -- the fact that it has to be included in the coverage is their complaint.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2012-February-17, 15:19, said:

Are you sure your insurance plan meets all the requirements of the ACA? The act requires that plans provide at least 10 "Essential Health Benefits", and one of these is prescription drug coverage. The one that I believe is used to require female birth control is preventive services -- avoiding unwanted pregnancy is viewed as preventive care.

That said, I don't think the ACA requires that everything be free. Prescription drug plans usually require the patient to pay a small percentage (around 15%), until they reach their deductible limit. But I don't think the distinction between free and percentage would matter in the RCC's objection to the contraception requirement -- the fact that it has to be included in the coverage is their complaint.

agree but you still seem to infer that the govt can require almost anything to be free, in other words that it does have the power to compel if and when it so chooses. That is what I find scary.


As I said if legal this is just another case of competing rights, how far does the first amendment go vs say equal protection.


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

---

Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2012-February-17, 15:33, said:

agree but you still seem to infer that the govt can require almost anything to be free, in other words that it does have the power to compel if and when it so chooses. That is what I find scary.

So your objection is to the whole requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers provide health coverage, not the minimum coverage that the plans must offer?

That's not the issue under discussion in this thread. If Obamacare is repealed, then whether it includes contraception will be moot.

The government already has the power to compel. It compels employers and citizens to pay taxes, it compels employers to contribute to Social Security and unemployment insurance. Compelling them to provide health insurance is consistent with these past acts.

It's likely that sometime in the next year or so the Supreme Court will hear a case where they'll be able to decide on the constitutionality of the ACA's mandates.