Skip to main content

View Diary: The progressive fight against the encroachment of religion on our secular government (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have nothing against accomodations (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, a2nite, RockyMtnLib, skohayes

    when they are choices that do not harm others, when they are not forced on non believers, and when they are available to all religions.  

    “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

    by ahumbleopinion on Sun Mar 18, 2012 at 11:23:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think that is what kalidioscope was working at. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Religious accommodation is not bad for America. False accommodations are bad. Accommodations which are really impositions in practice are bad.

      Which represents, I think, a different philosophy than the one held by the diarist.

    •  I fear that that this sounds awefully close to, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Accoomodations are great when they're accomodating beliefs I agree with.  They're bad when I their for beliefs I don't agree with."

      When it comes to the contraception compromise that is at issue -- the arrangement arrived at does not prevent anybody from acquiring birth control.  It just makes the church pay for it in a less direct way.  Does that arrangement still "harm others"?

      •  Yes, it harms others because it puts the (0+ / 0-)

        burden of paying for birth control, either for contraceptive or medical use on poor women who are least able to manage the expense of the medication or an unintended pregnancy.

        It increases the overall cost of health care that we all end up paying more for either in higher premiums or higher taxes.  It increases the federal deficit and local health care spending because the costs of unintended pregnancies or untreated medical conditions often are covered by government programs.

        It increases the heavy burden on American workers who are already struggling with lower wages and benefits.

        It increases the number of abortions which are expensive, difficult to obtain, and not without medical risks and causes unneeded suffering even in families who believe that they must make that choice.

        No one is forcing anyone to use birth control so the church and its members who believe in the ban are not being harmed at any where near the level of the families that are being harmed by making these medications more difficult and more costly for the patients who need them.

        What if the church doctrine was opposed to mental health drugs? Or vaccinations?  Would you support a ban on these treatments for anyone who had the misfortune to work for a person who did not believe in it?

        The employee or student is paying for the insurance either directly or as part of their total compensation.  Why should the coverage that they are paying for be subject to arbitrary limitations by their employer?

        “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

        by ahumbleopinion on Sun Mar 18, 2012 at 03:27:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site