Religious liberty means more than just the freedom to worship.
Okay, yes, it means the freedom to practice whatever it is your religion requires as part of its beliefs - but NOT the freedom to impose them on others. Can we agree on this?
And frankly, I think that if there ever were universal coverage, an individual mandate, whatever you want to call it, such that everyone in the country paid into the pool (through taxes [although they might not be called taxes, given the abhorrence of that term for some weird reason]), the RCC and certain others would still object because oh woes, there would be coverage for things they do not approve of, like contraception and abortion and IVF. (Gee, how... surprising... that almost all of the things objected to are related to women, and the keeping down thereof.)
So I have NO TRUCK with that attitude, because that would be imposing their beliefs on the whole damn rest of the country, and I surely do hope that the claims that having to pay for contraception infringes religious liberty get thrown out so hard they bounce.
No, discounting religious liberty isn't a reasonable solution, but we'd better be VERY careful that one person's liberty isn't another person's suppression. Not to mention that institutions DO NOT have religious liberty, IMO. Only people. SCOTUS was out of their minds to say that corporations are people, and when it comes to health care that goes double.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 04:06 pm (UTC)Okay, yes, it means the freedom to practice whatever it is your religion requires as part of its beliefs - but NOT the freedom to impose them on others. Can we agree on this?
And frankly, I think that if there ever were universal coverage, an individual mandate, whatever you want to call it, such that everyone in the country paid into the pool (through taxes [although they might not be called taxes, given the abhorrence of that term for some weird reason]), the RCC and certain others would still object because oh woes, there would be coverage for things they do not approve of, like contraception and abortion and IVF. (Gee, how... surprising... that almost all of the things objected to are related to women, and the keeping down thereof.)
So I have NO TRUCK with that attitude, because that would be imposing their beliefs on the whole damn rest of the country, and I surely do hope that the claims that having to pay for contraception infringes religious liberty get thrown out so hard they bounce.
No, discounting religious liberty isn't a reasonable solution, but we'd better be VERY careful that one person's liberty isn't another person's suppression. Not to mention that institutions DO NOT have religious liberty, IMO. Only people. SCOTUS was out of their minds to say that corporations are people, and when it comes to health care that goes double.
*irritated and slightly incoherent*