>Your name-calling and resort to vituperative, over-heated rhetoric in the threads to this article speak volumes to your apparent lack of capacity to carry on a productive and respectful dialogue with those with whom you disagree.

There are some views which are so sicking to me I don't treat them as anything but sickening. Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, racism. sexism, homophobia and trying to force me to buy others birth control by making me buy health insurance that provides birth control for persons who work for me would be the short list. Persons who can buy their own riders and frequent TARGET without forcing me to be a direct material participant in evil are Ok with me.

Why are the people on the left so adamant about forcing me to buy them birth control? This wasn't a problem prior to 2008. Many liberals used to stand for civil liberty. They are now the exception not the rule.

As a conservative I am against an expanded welfare state and single payer health care etc... However as a Catholic I need not support or oppose these endeavors as they are not matters of faith or morals but prudent political judgement.

Politics doesn't so much concern me as civil liberties.

What I am concerned with is civil liberty & the left is fighting like hell to suppress mine. BTW I don't agree that Fascism is a "right wing" ideology it's socialism with a few tolerated Captialists favored by the State.

I brought up Richard Dawkins to answer the weird claims that I am forcing my beliefs on others by refusing to provide them with that I view as immoral.

>I've never said anything in the comments to this OP, or in our extensive back and forth, to suggest that I believe I have any right to force you to buy me (or anyone else) birth control. Nor do I believe that.

But you do believe if I own a private business and you happen to work for me you can force me to buy you birth control by buying insurance that covers it if I have 50 employees or more or do you not? Or better still if I own a corporation that you work for you can force my Corporation buy you birth control by buying a health care policy that includes it instead of excluding it or do you not?

Do you or do you not in fact believe this? Because if you do then you clearly believe in forcing me to buy you birth control as far as I am concerned. How can it logically be otherwise?

>The Catholic Church was one of the principal sponsors and financial backers in Minnesota in 2012 of a proposed (state) constitutional amendment that would have precluded same sex marriages in Minnesota.

That is not equivalent. Not giving you(& by "you" I am being hypothetical I don't know or care about your actual personal life. It is none of my affair.) a piece of paper calling your long term sexual relationship with someone of the same gender "a marriage" is not the same as being compiled to perform an action against one's conscience.

If I had to choose between the State calling all Catholic marriages (including my own) "Domestic Partnerships" on a piece of paper vs being told I have to provide someone with birth control I would choose the former not the later. I would have more freedom under the former then the later and I would not be compelled to sin. I could care less what the State thinks of my Marriage. Only the Church's mind in this matter means anything to me.

I would be more open to tolerating same sex marriage(after all I tolerate divorce and "re-marriage" between baptized persons which is a sin) if it wasn't for gay fascists running around trying to force photographers who refuse to photograph same sex weddings or bakers who refuse to bake cakes for a same sex wedding. I would never tolerate a gay baker being made to bake a cake for the Westburro Baptist loonies. Why don't Christians get the same consideration?

>I find Dawkins to be incredibly lucid, imaginative, a spell-binding story teller and narrator, and one of the most coherent, accessible exponents of modern-day evolutionary biology for the non-specialist audience.

No argument but his critique of the Five Ways of Aquinas are as intelligent as reading Kirk Camron expound on Evolution.

Actually he is less intelligent. Kirk is not a Professor at Oxford so what is Dick's excuse?

>It is the Catholic Church that teaches that abortion, use of artificial means of birth control and same sex marriage/engaging in homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered acts that constitute grave moral evils.

But even then they are not all equivalent sins. Abortion is murder. I would be pro life even if I was an Atheist. In fact as an Atheist Pro-lifer once quipped "Abortion is worst in a godless universe because this life is all you get and murdering an unborn baby denies them their only shot at it."

There is no after life where the aborted can go too.

Birth control and homo-sex and same sex marriage don't harm the innocent. The sinners in those cases choose to sin .No innocent is being harmed.

>Pope Francis appears to have been striving to convey in the first year of his papacy in order to reach out to the universal brotherhood of humanity, seeking conciliation and the common interests that could unite all of us rather than promoting messages of hate and divisiveness.

Obviously you never read up on his head buttings with the Socialist President of his country over Abortion, same sex marriage and gay adoption.

> hope you will reconsider the manner in which you engage others who don't think as you do. To the extent you are genuinely interested in understanding others, and seeking to engage with the goal of changing hearts and minds, your current approach is exceedingly unlikely to get the job done.

Yes I would care to understand a big government advocate & his different economic political philosophy form mine but I don't care to understand a holocaust denier or a racist or a person who is hell bent on forcing me to buy them an insurance policy the provides birth control when they can provide this nonsense for themselves.

The later seems obviously wrong that any fair liberal minded person should be able to see it.

James:

Your name-calling and resort to vituperative, over-heated rhetoric in the threads to this article speak volumes to your apparent lack of capacity to carry on a productive and respectful dialogue with those with whom you disagree. While it may be de rigueur among a certain set of "right wingers" -- as you have referred to yourself -- such as those who routinely call in to the Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin AM talk radio programs to vent in such hyperbolic, detached-from-reality, evidence-free fashion, I find it rude and inappropriate in this forum and, in my view, contrary to this site's Commenting Rules and this site's stated goal of seeking to encourage respectful and serious dialogue.

To that end, if you wish to reconsider your approach, I'm happy to carry on our dialogue. But, if you continue in the same vein as this and several other of your comments from earlier today, I will no longer engage with you. Life is far, far too short.

I've never said anything in the comments to this OP, or in our extensive back and forth, to suggest that I believe I have any right to force you to buy me (or anyone else) birth control. Nor do I believe that. Stop making things up.

As to which "side" is intolerant and seeks to impose their religious beliefs/doctrines, social views and "will" on others, restricting the "others'" freedom and liberty, I'd invite you to focus some of your attention on some of the efforts of the Catholic Church/USCCB in this country in recent decades with respect to religious freedom and freedom of conscience for those who are not Catholic.

The Catholic Church was one of the principal sponsors and financial backers in Minnesota in 2012 of a proposed (state) constitutional amendment that would have precluded same sex marriages in Minnesota. I believe the Catholic Church, along with the Mormon Church, was also one of the principal sponsors and advocates for Proposition 8 in California in 2008 that amended the California Constitution to preclude same sex marriages in California before that amendment was struck down by the federal courts as violative of equal protection (another cherished constitutional right).

Can you point me to any serious "liberal" organization in the country that is seeking to require any person who prefers to marry a person of the opposite sex to instead be forced to marry a partner of the same sex? Can you point me to any "liberal" organization or any serious governmental effort that would purport to require any religion to solemnize and recognize same sex marriages under canon law if the religions's doctrines oppose same sex marriage?

Which institutional religion do you suppose is one of the chief sponsors and/or advocates for the inundation of state legislation in recent years seeking to chip away at the constitutional right to abortion in the US?

Which institutional religion do you suppose has been one of the most ardent backers in the past couple decades of the proposed "personhood" amendments to the US Constitution that would seek to ban all abortions outright?

Which institutional religion do you suppose would be the most vociferous advocate seeking overruling of the Griswold line of cases in the Supreme Court and pushing new state and federal laws banning artificial means of birth control, if it believed it possible to put together a coalition of other institutional religions and "social conservatives" wishing to reinstate such laws?

In contrast, political liberals like myself, whom the tone and tenor of your comments make clear you so ardently despise, will defend your rights to hold whatever religious beliefs you wish and to worship in whatever religious faith tradition you choose. I would defend your (or any Catholic who adheres rigidly to Catholic doctrine and teaching) right not to be forced against your will to (i) undergo an abortion, (ii) use artificial means of birth control, or (iii) marry another person of the same sex.

So, yeah, I am confident that actual efforts to enshrine religious dogmas into secular law and to restrict the freedom and liberty of "others" who do not hold the same religious beliefs and doctrines on all the hot button wedge issues so cherished by the "Religious Right" in this country over the past forty years is a concern properly laid at the doorstep of doctrinaire, dogmatic, proselytizing and non-tolerant religions rather than at the doorstep of political and social liberals who are far more tolerant of the views and rights of others who think and believe differently than they.

I'm hardly making this up.

It is the Catholic Church that teaches that abortion, use of artificial means of birth control and same sex marriage/engaging in homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered acts that constitute grave moral evils.

It is the Catholic Church that proudly asserts its stand for non-tolerance as to matters covered by its religious dogmas, based on its beliefs regarding the existence and nature of God and the Church's view of eventual divine judgment.

In contrast, political/social liberals may disagree with these religious beliefs but, by and large, most of them recognize that Catholics, and members of other religions/faith traditions, are free to believe as they wish and to live their lives in accordance with their own consciences informed by their religious beliefs and their religion's dogmas.

As to Richard Dawkins, I've never once mentioned Richard Dawkins in any of my comments. But, since you bring him up, I have read all but two (The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype) of his dozen or so books in their entirety. From my perspective, The God Delusion is far and away the weakest, the least thought-provoking and the most tendentious in Dawkin's oeuvre. Within his academic sphere of expertise, evolutionary biology, I find Dawkins to be incredibly lucid, imaginative, a spell-binding story teller and narrator, and one of the most coherent, accessible exponents of modern-day evolutionary biology for the non-specialist audience.

As to the concept of supposed "fascist left wingers" I suggest you spend some time seriously reading some history of the actual fascist movements in Spain, Italy and Germany in the first half of the 20th Century. Those fascist movements were essentially movements of "right-wing" conservative elements and large corporate interests in those societies, who tended to despise democracy and the rights, freedom and liberty interests of the common, ordinary citizens in their societies.

The tone, derision and contempt your comments display for those who are not members of your "tribe" and who think differently that you do is unfortunately representative of why our society has become so dysfunctional over the past few decades. Issues that you continue to portray as being childishly simple and cut and dried are rarely so. Such binary, black and white modes of thinking don't accord basic dignity and respect to views and values held by others in this society in good faith, who also seek truth, desire to live good, decent, moral and meaningful lives and who respect and extend empathy and tolerance to others who don't think as they do.

I hardly think that approach fairly represents the teachings and message of charity and respect for others that some think was among Jesus' core teachings and which Pope Francis appears to have been striving to convey in the first year of his papacy in order to reach out to the universal brotherhood of humanity, seeking conciliation and the common interests that could unite all of us rather than promoting messages of hate and divisiveness.

I hope you will reconsider the manner in which you engage others who don't think as you do. To the extent you are genuinely interested in understanding others, and seeking to engage with the goal of changing hearts and minds, your current approach is exceedingly unlikely to get the job done.

So why do you wish to force me to buy you birth control you can freely get yourself? You are free to buy the birth control and believe it's use is moral. But if I believe it sinfully perverts the natural use of the heterosexual sex act why must I be forced to directly participate in that and not opt out?

Why?

Prior too 2008 this was not an issue. The federal government did not try to force people to act against their faith in such a petty fashion.

How is this not "an arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power."?

It clearly is and Obummer has betrayed the whole civil liberty tradition of liberalism by doing it.

In fact he is properly a leftist not a true liberal.

.>But, they (and you) also don't get to dictate that others adhere to their (or your) religious beliefs and that others conform their lives to the dictates of their (or your) religion's doctrines and dogmas.

So because I deny you have the right to force me to buy you birth control then I am somehow dictating to you what to believe what to believe about it?

That is just extreme.

I have news for you if I worked for Richard Dawkins himself & recognized I have no right to demand he pay a Mass Stipend to my Priest for the souls of my dead relatives and friends that doesn't mean I have been forced by him to become an Atheist & deny the efficacy of the Holy Mass.

It is you fascist left wingers here who are forcing your will on me. Not the other way around. You can still buy birth control and believe it to be moral. I will not buy it for you upon pain of death and I don't believe it's use is natural.

Live with it. It's called freedom.

James:

My answer to both of your questions would be "no."

First, I note my disagreement with your use of the term "tyranny." It calls to mind Inigo Montoya's inimitable response to Vizzini's repeated invocation of "inconceivable" in The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." According to my Oxford English Dictionary, "tyranny" means (1) rule by a tyrant or usurper, (2) cruel or oppressive government or rule, (3) arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power, or (4) violent or lawless action.

Obama is not a tyrant; he is the duly twice-elected President of the United States who obtained a clear majority of the votes of those Americans who chose to vote in both 2008 and 2012. While you may disagree with the ACA, it is not arbitrary nor was it imposed by violence or lawless action; it was passed after more than a year of extensive debate by both houses of Congress and signed by the President in accordance with the process established in the Constitution for the passage of federal legislation.

I do not doubt that you disagree with most of the policies that Obama has pursued or with the few major pieces of federal legislation enacted by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2009-10, before the GOP retook control of the House after the 2010 election. Your substantive disagreement with public policy adopted through democratic processes laid down in the US Constitution does not, however, render such policy tyrannical or mark Obama as a tyrant. After all, most of those who hold political and social views characterized as very liberal have suffered through almost 40 years of unresponsive government almost wholly indifferent to their views under the Administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and now Obama, and a federal government that has effectively done the bidding of corporate America and the extremely wealthy for going on 35 years now, but that does not mean we've lived under tyranny in this country over that period.

Your first hypothetical implicates the First Amendment's guarantee of the right of freedom of speech (as well as issues I've articulated elsewhere in our dialogue such as whether such a statute would fall within the government's enumerated powers and the rationale the government advanced for enacting such a statute), and the First Amendment should foreclose action by the government seeking to compel individuals to advocate/speak in substantive ways that the individual disagrees with.

By the way, my answer would be the same if your hypothetical posited the government "forcing" so-called "pro-life" persons (I use that phrase only because it has become a short-hand identifier of where a person is likely to stand on most facets of the abortion debate in this country and not because I agree that the basket of religious views typically held by many on that "side" of the abortion debate are actually "pro-life" in many meaningful ways although they may be "pro birth") to buy and provide "pro-choice" literature for their employees.

In your second hypothetical, you, as an individual, would have no ability whatsoever to force Playboy Magazine to do anything. But, assuming you intended to refer to the government and not yourself, the answer would be "no" for the same reason I articulated for the first hypothetical.

Again, by the way, my answer would be the same if your second hypothetical posited the government "forcing" the Catholic Church to include educational materials endorsing abortion or same sex marriage along with the bulletin distributed to its parishioners at Sunday mass.

James:

Your view, "you [I presume you mean HHS, in this context] are forcing [the company] to buy policies that contain immoral services," might reflect the religious or moral views of some or perhaps even all of the corporation's shareholders that some forms of artificial birth control are immoral given their religious beliefs.

But, that doesn't mean the employees of the company share the same religious views as the company's shareholder(s). Those employees have rights, too.

In a complex society like the US, part of what government does is to balance the competing rights and interests of the many constituents of our society -- including our human citizens, institutions like corporations, foundations, and universities, and the various branches and agencies of federal, state and municipal governments -- given the complex maze of federal and state constitutional provisions, federal and state statutes, and federal, state and municipal regulations and ordinances.

No one is saying that the Greens and Hahns (the shareholders of the three corporations involved in the Hobby Lobby case) or you, James Scott, don't have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs or to belong to whatever religious faiths/traditions they or you choose, or to decide for yourselves whether to use artificial means of birth control or to have abortions. But, they (and you) also don't get to dictate that others adhere to their (or your) religious beliefs and that others conform their lives to the dictates of their (or your) religion's doctrines and dogmas.

That anyone is free to choose not to use any forms of artificial birth control they find objectionable, based on religious beliefs, does not give them the right to foreclose others who don't hold those same religious beliefs, and who, in fact, may strongly disagree with those beliefs, from using them.

I accept your explanation, based on your expertise, that a company may be the owner and its employees merely beneficiaires of health insurance policies sold by private health insurance companies. But, that hardly changes the substance of the issue, to my way of thinking, that the provision of such health insurance functionally operates as part of the employee's total compensation package, and thus represents the employee's "money."

As noted above in my earlier comment, I agree that the employer-provided system of health insurance we have in this country -- through which the great majority of Americans who receive health care obtain their health care -- is serving us poorly, and should be abandoned. My preference would be to move to a single payer, "Medicare for all" system. But, to the extent that cannot happen in this country for obvious political reasons, the ACA, which offers individuals the opportunity to purchase individual policies through state-administered exchanges which ought to be more affordable than is the case at present for any individuals/families who seek to purchase policies on their own, is a step in the right direction.

So you support a tyranny that would allow a government to force Pro-choice persons to buy and provide pro-life literature for their employees?

Can I also force PLAYBOY Magazine to provide educational materials on chastity while I am at it?

It is funny how this Catholic who belongs to a Church that wants to take away people's rights thinks that is just wrong even thought I am anti-porn and pro-life.

I am sorry but I am a right winger who learned about civil liberty from left wing professors who unlike modern left wingers who are drunk with power and hope and change would have rather died then force me to act against my conscience.

I see no reason to be kind to the defense of the indefensible.

I have rights and the right to swing your hand ends at the tip of my nose.

By trying to force me to buy you birth control which you are free to get yourself without substantial burden you are touching my nose.

I will not tolerate that.

James.

Not so.

Here, again, the issue would have to be analyzed in terms of whether any such statute/regulation fell within the government's enumerated powers and the rationale offered by the government for such regulation. In this hypothetical you propose, the First Amendment right of free speech would also be implicated. So, I think it would be highly unlikely that a court would uphold such a statute/regulation.