tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6456971920210651577.post4925020109302635618..comments2024-02-25T12:22:59.842-06:00Comments on A Catholic Citizen in America: HHS Mandate, Six Reasons Why It's a Bad IdeaBrian H. Gillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13209697542675181894noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6456971920210651577.post-76229650857746389892012-05-24T10:41:55.298-05:002012-05-24T10:41:55.298-05:00Doug Indeap,
You clearly want to adhere to our le...Doug Indeap,<br /><br />You clearly want to adhere to our leader's official line.<br /><br />In the short term, that may be prudent.<br /><br />In the long term, I prefer to deal with reality: not whatever the current establishment wants the rest of us to believe.<br /><br />I do not doubt that you are sincere.<br /><br />I am, however, convinced that you are mistaken.Brian H. Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13209697542675181894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6456971920210651577.post-1439728888750144172012-05-19T16:20:23.720-05:002012-05-19T16:20:23.720-05:00Arguments about the health care law have gone from...Arguments about the health care law have gone from wrong to ridiculous. The law does not contravene the Constitution Nor does it force any employer to act contrary to his or her conscience.<br /><br />Confronted by questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith, the courts have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. <br /><br />When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), provide exemptions for conscientious objectors. <br /><br />There is no need for an exemption here. While some, e.g., Catholic bishops, may well oppose the law’s policy of promoting the availability of medical services they find objectionable, the law does not put employers in the moral bind they suppose. Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral. Employers, though, have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved. <br /><br />Indeed, some have continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? <br /><br />In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.<br /><br />Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They counter what they call the government’s “accounting gimmick” with one of their own: “religious dollars.” These dollars, it seems, can only be used to pay for things conforming to an employer’s religious beliefs even after the employer spends them and they thus become the property of others, e.g., insurers or employees. I can only wonder what proponents would think of their tag-the-dollar idea if they realized that I have loosed some “atheist dollars” into society, some of which have found their way into their wallets. Those dollars can be used only for ungodly purposes, lest I suffer the indignity of paying for things I disbelieve. If one lands in your hands, whatever you do, for god’s sake, don’t put it in the collection plate.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.com