What the Little Sisters of the Poor Case Could Mean for Religious Liberty

[Barrd]

Can students pray in school?

Once, the entire class would bow their heads together, while their teacher led them in prayer...or, perhaps their principal led the entire school over the P.A. system.
But, as we all know, that's been outlawed. Heaven forbid that our government should ever support Christianity...we are not a Christian nation...we are SECULAR.
I'm not exactly sure when we underwent this sea-change...when I got married fresh out of high school, we were proud to be a Christian nation. I got busy raising a family, and the next thing I knew, we had become "secular", although nearly 80% of U.S. citizens claim to be Christian. Heaven forbid we might "offend" the other 20%.

Although, on their own turf, adherents of these "other religions" don't mind at all offending Christians..

Prayer was outlawed in school in 1962...of course, the high school I went to evidently was not aware of this, because those morning and evening prayers were still coming over the PA right up to our graduation in '68...

Of course, kids can still pray in school...on their own. And they'd better be quiet about it. And not to "obvious". It simply would not do for a kid to pray in such a way as to "offend" anyone. Best hide in the janitor's closet, especially if you feel a need to get on your knees...

Maybe you've heard this prayer by a school kid:

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

 

[River Jordan]

It's always "a different legal issue" when a Muslim does it.


Nice dodge.

Now you're just deflecting (a regular habit of yours). If you truly think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.

The Sisters are as committed to their faith as the muzzie is to his. Of course, they aren't nearly as likely to retaliate when told they must violate that faith...which makes a HUGE difference.
Obama's "Affordable Care Act" doesn't seem to be working...

More deflection. If you truly think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.

It seems to me that you are much more concerned about the laws of man than you are about the Laws of God.
Why is that?

More deflection. If you truly think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.

Wouldn't they have to provide the insurance?

No. You know, it's kinda difficult to discuss a case like this when one of the participants doesn't even know the basics of it.

Well then, the Sisters should be exempt from the Affordable Care Act, as well.

They are. But the Little Sisters are saying that's not good enough.

Then why, oh, why would you insist that some poor Christian baker must bake a cake for the gay wedding?
They chose to violate man's law rather than God's Law...and you decided that they were wrong for violating man's law.

As I recall, you cut me up pretty good for siding with the bakeries.

And, here we are, again...

We've been over this, and you obviously didn't pay attention then, so I'm doubtful you'll pay attention this time either.

That is not what I said, and you know it.

This is what you said regarding the Little Sisters: "The government has no right to go poking it's nose into their business". Do you still maintain that view, even if they are breaking the law?

Big brother has no business "stepping in" in cases like the Christian bakers who refused to participate in what God has called an abomination, nor do they have any business requiring the Sisters to help young women to obtain birth control.

Now, if the bakeries were using child labor, or if the Sisters were torturing little girls, that would be different.

Maybe you should give us a list of the laws you think religious groups should be free to violate, and the laws you think religious groups shouldn't be free to violate.

Where man's law does not conflict with God's law, perhaps.

Which set of "God's laws"? Yours? Muslims'? Hindus'? Mormons'?

Our government is not to make laws that prevent any religious organization from the free practice of their religion.

Do you believe "free practice of religion" = "I can violate whatever laws I want"?

You know, when that amendment was framed, I'm pretty sure the men who wrote the thing did not have Satanists in mind...they were thinking Christians.
That was back before we became a "secular nation".

Actually, the founding fathers specifically considered Muslims when writing the Constitution and guaranteeing the freedom of religion.

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan."

So, let's say your laboratory asked for and received a grant to do research relating to cancer in children per St. Jude's Hospital.
I'm pretty sure that would preclude you doing research as to the sex life of bees...what do you think?

Quit deflecting. Do you have any actual evidence to back up your accusation or not?

I'm going to answer this in a new post...

It's emotional claptrap and not at all based in reality. Students pray in schools all the time, quite publicly. They have Bible study groups, Christian fellowship groups, prayer groups, they host prayer events, and all sorts of similar things. So the "they'd better be quiet about it" is nothing more than made-up martyrdom.

Then the first two lines of the poem are "Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule", which is completely false.

Why can't you just work from reality rather than making up imaginary things to be upset about?

 

[Barrd]

Now you're just deflecting (a regular habit of yours). If you truly think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.


More deflection. If you truly think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.


More deflection. If you truly think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.

I truly think that, if you are going to work for someone who holds religious values, you should be prepared to respect those values.
Thus, if you go to work for a Muslim, you should expect to be required to wear hajib.
If you go to work for a Catholic charity, you should expect to pay for your own birth control.
If you go to work for a scientologist, don't be surprised if he checks you out with an E-meter every now and then, to make sure you aren't bringing any unwanted spiritual energy into the workplace.

No. You know, it's kinda difficult to discuss a case like this when one of the participants doesn't even know the basics of it.

Actually, I don't search the internet, looking for things to argue about. It wasn't until I saw this thread that I even heard about this case...and I'm wondering...why all the hullaballoo? I mean, the Catholic church has stood against contraceptives since forever...why should they have to change their mind now? Because Obama says so?

They are. But the Little Sisters are saying that's not good enough.

Not if they have to fill out a form so that their employees can get contraceptives anyway. Why should they have to do that?

We've been over this, and you obviously didn't pay attention then, so I'm doubtful you'll pay attention this time either.

You told me that, according to the law, those bakeries had to provide wedding cakes for gay couples, whether they wanted to or not.
It didn't matter that God says it is an abomination. The law says that the bakery must serve every customer that comes through the door.
I distinctly recall being accused of "vilifying gays"...which you and another user seemed to think was a horrible no-no.

This is what you said regarding the Little Sisters: "The government has no right to go poking it's nose into their business". Do you still maintain that view, even if they are breaking the law?

As long as they are not sacrificing virgins or torturing children, or some such nonsense, then, yes...I still maintain the view that a Christian...any Christian...must obey God first, and man's law second. Not the other way around.

Maybe you should give us a list of the laws you think religious groups should be free to violate, and the laws you think religious groups shouldn't be free to violate.

Any time there is a conflict between God's laws and man's laws, we are to obey God's laws, even if it means that we might be fined, or spend time in jail...or worse.

Which set of "God's laws"? Yours? Muslims'? Hindus'? Mormons'?

Obviously, since I am a Christian, I am referring to the Christian God's laws.
I don't really know enough about Muslims, Hindus, or Mormons to comment...

Do you believe "free practice of religion" = "I can violate whatever laws I want"?

If the law in question conflicts with God's law, then I really have no choice. I must obey God's laws first.

Actually, the founding fathers specifically considered Muslims when writing the Constitution and guaranteeing the freedom of religion.

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan."

That's not what I was taught back in high school...and, you know, I still have some serious doubts.

http://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/was-thomas-jefferson-christian-did-he-believe-jesus-christ

Quit deflecting. Do you have any actual evidence to back up your accusation or not?

I think I've mentioned once or twice before...I am not a scientist.
For which I am truly grateful.

It's emotional claptrap and not at all based in reality. Students pray in schools all the time, quite publicly. They have Bible study groups, Christian fellowship groups, prayer groups, they host prayer events, and all sorts of similar things. So the "they'd better be quiet about it" is nothing more than made-up martyrdom.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/High-School-Cuts-Mic-During-Valedictorian-Speech-210632391.html

He's not the first...as I'm sure you know.

What's that you were saying about prayer circles?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school-26130/

This kid wasn't even praying...he was just reading his Bible. And it wasn't class time...it was recess, fapeetsakes:

http://www.thenewsnerd.com/local/boy-suspended-school-reading-bible-recess/

This one is pure paranoia:

http://fox13now.com/2014/08/20/student-suspended-for-saying-bless-you-at-school/

And this one is pathetic:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dad-teacher-told-my-kid-to-stop-lunchtime-prayer.html

Then the first two lines of the poem are "Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule", which is completely false.

Perhaps the writer was telling us his own experience?

Why can't you just work from reality rather than making up imaginary things to be upset about?

I think the reality that upset me the most was the kindergarten kid, being told she must not pray before she eats at school.
I am so grateful that, here in "Redneckville", those kinds of things are not happening.

We intend to keep it that way for as long as possible...

 

[River Jordan]

I truly think that, if you are going to work for someone who holds religious values, you should be prepared to respect those values.
Thus, if you go to work for a Muslim, you should expect to be required to wear hajib.
If you go to work for a Catholic charity, you should expect to pay for your own birth control.
If you go to work for a scientologist, don't be surprised if he checks you out with an E-meter every now and then, to make sure you aren't bringing any unwanted spiritual energy into the workplace.

You're still deflecting. If you think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.

Actually, I don't search the internet, looking for things to argue about. It wasn't until I saw this thread that I even heard about this case...and I'm wondering...why all the hullaballoo?

Just as I suspected....you've been commenting on a case you know little to nothing about.

I mean, the Catholic church has stood against contraceptives since forever...why should they have to change their mind now? Because Obama says so?

????????? :blink: No one is telling them they have to change their beliefs.

Not if they have to fill out a form so that their employees can get contraceptives anyway. Why should they have to do that?

Again you show two things, 1) you've not been paying attention, and 2) you're commenting on a case you know little to nothing about. I've explained this before and you obviously didn't pay attention, so I'm not inclined to do it again.

As long as they are not sacrificing virgins or torturing children, or some such nonsense, then, yes...I still maintain the view that a Christian...any Christian...must obey God first, and man's law second. Not the other way around.

Then you have to be prepared for the consequences of breaking the law, and you can't complain when they happen. And BTW, just where is the prohibition against contraception in God's laws?

That's not what I was taught back in high school.

Given what you've posted about the schools in your area, that's hardly surprising.

..and, you know, I still have some serious doubts.

http://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/was-thomas-jefferson-christian-did-he-believe-jesus-christ

What in the world does that have to do with the fact that the founding fathers intended for religious protections to apply to all religions and not just Christianity?

I think I've mentioned once or twice before...I am not a scientist.
For which I am truly grateful.

Given your latest deflection I'm going to conclude that you have zero evidence to support your accusation. Now the only question is if you're moral enough to retract and apologize for accusing so many people of something you had absolutely no evidence for.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/High-School-Cuts-Mic-During-Valedictorian-Speech-210632391.html

He's not the first...as I'm sure you know.

That's not a student praying on his own time. That took place at a formal school function and the script had to be pre-approved by school officials. So if the student started praying during his speech, it gives the impression that the government endorses the prayer.

What's that you were saying about prayer circles?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school-26130/

Those students weren't suspended for merely praying. They were trying to be deliberately disruptive and the school gave them an option to hold their prayer group in a non-disruptive school setting and they refused.

Just like all other activities students are free to do, they cross a line when they're being disruptive.

This kid wasn't even praying...he was just reading his Bible. And it wasn't class time...it was recess, fapeetsakes:

http://www.thenewsnerd.com/local/boy-suspended-school-reading-bible-recess/

Turns out that's a fake story: http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/natalie-gross/2014-07-21/school-district-says-story-plainview-boy-suspended

This one is pure paranoia:

http://fox13now.com/2014/08/20/student-suspended-for-saying-bless-you-at-school/

That's not about prayer. The teacher claims it was about being disruptive, which I honestly think is kinda silly given that "Bless you" is such a social habit.

And this one is pathetic:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dad-teacher-told-my-kid-to-stop-lunchtime-prayer.html

It's also fake, seemingly a PR stunt designed to gin up publicity for a book.

I think the reality that upset me the most was the kindergarten kid, being told she must not pray before she eats at school.
I am so grateful that, here in "Redneckville", those kinds of things are not happening.

And it turns out that's not happening anywhere.

 

[Barrd]

You're still deflecting. If you think the two cases are the same, then name the law the Muslim employer is violating.


Just as I suspected....you've been commenting on a case you know little to nothing about.


????????? :blink: No one is telling them they have to change their beliefs.


Again you show two things, 1) you've not been paying attention, and 2) you're commenting on a case you know little to nothing about. I've explained this before and you obviously didn't pay attention, so I'm not inclined to do it again.


Then you have to be prepared for the consequences of breaking the law, and you can't complain when they happen. And BTW, just where is the prohibition against contraception in God's laws?


Given what you've posted about the schools in your area, that's hardly surprising.


What in the world does that have to do with the fact that the founding fathers intended for religious protections to apply to all religions and not just Christianity?

Given your latest deflection I'm going to conclude that you have zero evidence to support your accusation. Now the only question is if you're moral enough to retract and apologize for accusing so many people of something you had absolutely no evidence for.


That's not a student praying on his own time. That took place at a formal school function and the script had to be pre-approved by school officials. So if the student started praying during his speech, it gives the impression that the government endorses the prayer.


Those students weren't suspended for merely praying. They were trying to be deliberately disruptive and the school gave them an option to hold their prayer group in a non-disruptive school setting and they refused.

Just like all other activities students are free to do, they cross a line when they're being disruptive.


Turns out that's a fake story: http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/natalie-gross/2014-07-21/school-district-says-story-plainview-boy-suspended


That's not about prayer. The teacher claims it was about being disruptive, which I honestly think is kinda silly given that "Bless you" is such a social habit.

It's also fake, seemingly a PR stunt designed to gin up publicity for a book.

And it turns out that's not happening anywhere.

I think the main problem is that you look at things from a different perspective than I do, and that isn't going to change.

About the only point you actually have here is that I really do not know an awful lot about scientific research. It just stands to reason that, if the government gives a grant, then they expect you to do the research that they are paying for.

As far as the rest of it...as long as the religion doesn't call for human sacrifice or child abuse, then the government has no business telling any religious organization what they may or may not do.

Always, for the Christian, obeying God has to be much more important than obeying the government.
Isn't it?

I know I've mentioned that I grew up in upstate New York, and that is where I was educated. Oh, well...a strike at the educational system in the south from you is not terribly surprising...

 

[River Jordan]

I think the main problem is that you look at things from a different perspective than I do, and that isn't going to change.

Fair enough.

About the only point you actually have here is that I really do not know an awful lot about scientific research. It just stands to reason that, if the government gives a grant, then they expect you to do the research that they are paying for.

But that's not what you accused people of. You said they dictate which framework you work under, even though you have absolutely no evidence of such a thing.

As far as the rest of it...as long as the religion doesn't call for human sacrifice or child abuse, then the government has no business telling any religious organization what they may or may not do.

What if they steal money?

Always, for the Christian, obeying God has to be much more important than obeying the government.
Isn't it?

Sure.

I know I've mentioned that I grew up in upstate New York, and that is where I was educated. Oh, well...a strike at the educational system in the south from you is not terribly surprising...

Pretty easy too.

 

[Barrd]

Fair enough.

Thank you.

But that's not what you accused people of. You said they dictate which framework you work under, even though you have absolutely no evidence of such a thing.

The outfit that pays your salary "dictates" what they want you to do.
The people that pay you are your "boss".
It's called "workin' for a livin'", and it's something most of us have done at some point in our lives....some more than others.

What if they steal money?

You mean, like if they go into the 7-11 with a gun and hold up the cashier?
Why, then they would be prosecuted just like anyone else.
But if you're talking about televangelists bilking old ladies out of their grocery money...unfortunately, Big Brother really can't do much for you if you are that stupid.

Sure.

Well, that is what the Sisters are trying to do.
Now, I agree with you on the point that God does not seem to have had much to say on the subject of birth control devices...possibly because they had not been invented at the time the Bible was being written. However, the Sisters are convinced in their hearts that God does not want people artificially keeping life from happening.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I had seven, and on every form of birth control known to man, so, I'm pretty sure that if God wants life to happen, no pill, or condom, or cream, or any other device, including an i.u.d. is going to stop it. Heck, I got pregnant with the baby after my tubes had been tied...so I'm pretty sure God wanted her to be born.
However, the Sisters have every right to their beliefs, even if you and I do not share them, and they ought to have the right to run their charity according to those beliefs without any government interference. It's not like they are forcing anyone to get pregnant. You can still buy your own birth control...I mean, there is a drug store on every corner. You just have to pay for it yourself. It's really not that big a deal...

Pretty easy too.

It's a cheap shot.
You're better than that, River.
Aren't you?

 

[River Jordan]

The outfit that pays your salary "dictates" what they want you to do.
The people that pay you are your "boss".
It's called "workin' for a livin'", and it's something most of us have done at some point in our lives....some more than others.

Why can't you just admit that you have no idea how the scientific process works and be done? Why do you feel the need to keep accusing lots and lots of people of unethical practices, even though you have absolutely zero evidence of it?

You mean, like if they go into the 7-11 with a gun and hold up the cashier?
Why, then they would be prosecuted just like anyone else.
But if you're talking about televangelists bilking old ladies out of their grocery money...unfortunately, Big Brother really can't do much for you if you are that stupid.

Wow. :blink:

Well, that is what the Sisters are trying to do.
Now, I agree with you on the point that God does not seem to have had much to say on the subject of birth control devices...possibly because they had not been invented at the time the Bible was being written. However, the Sisters are convinced in their hearts that God does not want people artificially keeping life from happening.

Then they shouldn't use contraception.

However, the Sisters have every right to their beliefs, even if you and I do not share them, and they ought to have the right to run their charity according to those beliefs without any government interference. It's not like they are forcing anyone to get pregnant. You can still buy your own birth control...I mean, there is a drug store on every corner. You just have to pay for it yourself. It's really not that big a deal...

But the law says all health care plans must cover contraception. So we have a conflict between the Little Sisters' desire to make their employees abide by their religious rules and the law. Then the government tells the Sisters, "Ok, you don't have to provide or pay for the plans in any way, shape, or form. Just fill out this waiver and you're good to go." But the Sisters say "No, because if we fill out the waiver, they'll just get contraceptives another way", which doesn't make sense because as you say, the employees could go out and buy them on their own regardless.

It's a cheap shot.

It was a joke.

 

[Barrd]

Why can't you just admit that you have no idea how the scientific process works and be done? Why do you feel the need to keep accusing lots and lots of people of unethical practices, even though you have absolutely zero evidence of it?

Unethical? River, it is not unethical to insist that the people you are paying should do what you are paying them to do. Lots and lots of people who pay other people to do a job do insist that the job that they are paying for be done according to their instruction. That is not new at all.

Wow. :blink:

?

Then they shouldn't use contraception.

Agreed.
However, the Sisters do not see it that way. They believe that it is a sin in God's eyes to use artificial means to keep life from happening, and they refuse to provide the means to keep life from happening...even by filling out a waiver.
Just like those bakers who believe that gay marriage is an abomination in God's eyes, and so refuse to participate in it by providing a wedding cake. Unfortunately, they didn't stop gay marriage from happening...

It has to do with standing up for one's beliefs, even in the face of breaking man's laws.
Sort of like the Sanhedrin telling the Apostles that it was against the law for them to preach about Jesus...they actually had them beaten for it.
But, they were back the very next day...

But the law says all health care plans must cover contraception. So we have a conflict between the Little Sisters' desire to make their employees abide by their religious rules and the law. Then the government tells the Sisters, "Ok, you don't have to provide or pay for the plans in any way, shape, or form. Just fill out this waiver and you're good to go." But the Sisters say "No, because if we fill out the waiver, they'll just get contraceptives another way", which doesn't make sense because as you say, the employees could go out and buy them on their own regardless.

Yes, River...it is true that, ultimately, the Sisters cannot stop anyone from using contraceptives. I think that they probably know that.
However, they seem to be insistent that they will have nothing to do with the process.
That should be their right.

It was a joke.

So, you're not better than that?
I'm disappointed....

 

[River Jordan]

Unethical? River, it is not unethical to insist that the people you are paying should do what you are paying them to do. Lots and lots of people who pay other people to do a job do insist that the job that they are paying for be done according to their instruction. That is not new at all.

You're walking back your accusation. Initially you accused the government of dictating which operational framework scientists work under. Now you're saying they just expect the scientist to do what he/she proposed. I guess that's as close to a retraction and apology I can expect.

?

I'm surprised that you feel if a preacher defrauds old people out of their money, it's the old people's fault.

Agreed.
However, the Sisters do not see it that way. They believe that it is a sin in God's eyes to use artificial means to keep life from happening, and they refuse to provide the means to keep life from happening...even by filling out a waiver.

We'll see how it plays out in court.

So, you're not better than that?
I'm disappointed....

Well you've made jokes at my expense....I guess I didn't realize it was a one-way street.