Separation of Church and State?

[Joe DeFuria]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040301-1647-ca-churchcontraceptives.html

SAN FRANCISCO – A Catholic charitable organization must include birth control coverage in its health care plan for workers even though the nonprofit is morally opposed to contraception, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The ONLY way I could see this as a legitimate ruling, is if some of the funding comes from taxpayer dollars. (It is not clear if this is the case or not here.) If a charity is using all private donations / fundraising, then what right does the gov't have in dictating this?

You know what the next logical step is...

 

[John Reynolds]

Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that a "significant majority" of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.

Note that no one is making the Catholics actually use the birth control coverage, only that it would be available to the non-Catholic workers. Garners a big "meh" from me.

 

[L233]

The ONLY way I could see this as a legitimate ruling, is if some of the funding comes from taxpayer dollars. (It is not clear if this is the case or not here.)

From the article:
"But the state Supreme Court said Catholic Charities is no different than other businesses in California and said the charity doesn't qualify for the exemption because its purpose is secular.

The court ruled that the charity falls under existing laws for businesses because its purpose is secular and that's pretty much all there is to say. I don't really think this is an issue of state-church separation.

State-church separation doesn't mean that organizations can ignore existing laws simply because they are in some way affiliated with a religion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Note that no one is making the Catholics actually use the birth control coverage...

This means that they have to pay for a plan that offers coverage, completely against their beliefs, whether or not people take it.

Though that's actually besides the point of the state forcing it's will upon a religion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

"But the state Supreme Court said Catholic Charities is no different than other businesses in California and said the charity doesn't qualify for the exemption because its purpose is secular.

It's secular...says the CA Supreme court. That's the entire debate right there. IF the Church argues "we offer our services indiscriminately, because our religion teaches us to love everyone", is that secular or not?

It's much more clear cut if you define a "secular" organiziation as one who uses, at least in part, public money. Again, I'm not sure if this is the case here or not. Isn't this how "public" and "private" enterpirses are chiefly differentiated wrt to other laws?

State-church separation doesn't mean that organizations can ignore existing laws simply because they are in some way affiliated with a religion.

Of course...though state-church separation has been twisted to several definitions that are debated to this day.

 

[RussSchultz]

"But the state Supreme Court said Catholic Charities is no different than other businesses in California and said the charity doesn't qualify for the exemption because its purpose is secular.

As the lone dissenter justice then asked (paraphrased): What then is a "religious employer" if not this Catholic Charity organization?

Note: "religious employers" are granted exemptions from the CA law requiring birth control be included in any prescription health benefits.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

State-church separation doesn't mean that organizations can ignore existing laws simply because they are in some way affiliated with a religion.

WhatI was getting at earlier: does this mean that if existing laws say "gays have the right to be married", that the Church must allow it?

 

[L233]

WhatI was getting at earlier: does this mean that if existing laws say "gays have the right to be married", that the Church must allow it?

Well, I am not familiar with US/Californian law. I guess it depends on whether the churches can actually marry people juridically (and not just religiously).

If a church is empowered to declare a legal marriage then the church can be forced to marry gays. If the church simply provides religious ceremonial then the state should stay the fuck out of it.

 

[Florin]

It's secular...says the CA Supreme court. That's the entire debate right there. IF the Church argues "we offer our services indiscriminately, because our religion teaches us to love everyone", is that secular or not?

Still, the question why employees who work for this charity but are not interested in the Catholic message should be at a disadvantage compared to employees of other organisations seems reasonable.

I found it interesting to hear that the cost of health care for women of childbearing age is up to 60% higher than that of men of the same age. And ironic that Viagra on the other hand was almost immediately adopted in these insurance coverage packages.

 

[L233]

It's secular...says the CA Supreme court.

I don't think we disagree here. The question is not church-state separation, it's whether a charity with a secular purpose falls under state law for regular businesses or not.

And it's a bit hard to discuss this because we don't know the exact reasoning of the verdict.

 

[Florin]

State-church separation doesn't mean that organizations can ignore existing laws simply because they are in some way affiliated with a religion.

WhatI was getting at earlier: does this mean that if existing laws say "gays have the right to be married", that the Church must allow it?

The marriage services of the Catholic Church (primarily) cater to followers of that religion, I'd say. And these ceremonies are not performed by employees who are themselves not Catholic. So no.

 

[Sazar]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040301-1647-ca-churchcontraceptives.html

SAN FRANCISCO – A Catholic charitable organization must include birth control coverage in its health care plan for workers even though the nonprofit is morally opposed to contraception, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The ONLY way I could see this as a legitimate ruling, is if some of the funding comes from taxpayer dollars. (It is not clear if this is the case or not here.) If a charity is using all private donations / fundraising, then what right does the gov't have in dictating this?

You know what the next logical step is...

fyi

California is one of 20 states to require that all company-provided health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits...

...Catholic Charities has 183 full-time employees and had a $76 million budget in California in 2002. It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

ergo it is their responsibility to offer coverage even if it does not share the church's philosophy...

 

[John Reynolds]

What I was getting at earlier: does this mean that if existing laws say "gays have the right to be married", that the Church must allow it?

Wow, Joe, you've opened my eyes: gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. OK, maybe not.

Actually I've never seen gays demanding the state to force churches to marry them. It's more of getting the state to recognize the validity of their marriages, by whatever religious organization/minister/priest/etc. that performs the ceremony.

 

[kyleb]

State-church separation doesn't mean that organizations can ignore existing laws simply because they are in some way affiliated with a religion.

WhatI was getting at earlier: does this mean that if existing laws say "gays have the right to be married", that the Church must allow it?

no, not at all. were do you come up with this crazy shit anyway?

all this mean that if they have a gay man working for them then they must extend his heath care plan to his husband just as they would any other spouse. get it?

 

[MfA]

There are 3 issues here ...

Wether or not the law of the land should intrude on labour contracts at all.

Wether religious organizations should get special exemptions on labour laws at all.

Wether charities should count as religuous organizations.

Personally I would say yes and no and I really dont give a shit (the ruling seems strange, but as I said ... I dont give a shit). I can see how some people would answer no to the first question, but then the rest becomes meaningless

If they are that opposed to it let them try to find people to work for them for room and board. There are plenty of catholics taking the pill, and I am 99% certain there are plenty of women working in ordinary payed jobs at those organizations who take the pill too.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, I am not familiar with US/Californian law. I guess it depends on whether the churches can actually marry people juridically (and not just religiously).

I'm sure they can.

If a church is empowered to declare a legal marriage then the church can be forced to marry gays.

I don't see why they couldn't be forced to, based on this ruling.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The marriage services of the Catholic Church (primarily) cater to followers of that religion, I'd say.

What difference does that really make though? I mean, anyone who "wants" to be Catholic, can.

And these ceremonies are not performed by employees who are themselves not Catholic. So no.

The the employees of the charitable organizations forced to be there, or are they there under their free will?

 

[MfA]

That last arguement can be made for any employee at any organization.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Actually I've never seen gays demanding the state to force churches to marry them.

Nor have I. That doesn't mean some nut won't bring a law-suit "just because" he can, and he has a "bone to pick" with the Church.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If they are that opposed to it let them try to find people to work for them for room and board.

Why don't the people try and find another charitable organization, and the employees try and find another job?

There are plenty of catholics taking the pill,

Point?