When you have 98% of the women in the Roman Catholic church who are sexually active - which is at some time in their lives most of them, overwhelmingly - then I think it is fair for the rest of us, including the Obama administration, to recognize that the hierarchy, the Bishops of the Roman Catholic church are not speaking for the body of their own church, any more than generals without soldiers could legitimately speak for an absent / dissenting army.
Obama is clearly not waging war on religion; and he is no more waging war on Roman Catholicism than generals and an army are waging war on dissenting soldiers for a conflict with a few in the hierarchy - and even the hierarchy is far from unified on this point. Some f the ranking officers, so to speak, dissent as well. The scope of the generals whose soldiers have left them in dissent is covered below, but for those of you who wish to read the LA Times article referenced in the video below for yourselves, it's here.
And if you doubt the analogy I made above about contraception, also on the topic of the fabricated war on religion is this, from the Maddow blog author, Steve Benen which you can read here (the original has the actual poll links):
Ignoring a consensus on contraception
By Steve Benen - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:09 AM EST.Critics of the White House's policy on contraception access have been pretty aggressive of late, with a coordinated attack both on the policy and President Obama's compromise, but the campaign has failed miserably to persuade the public.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll included a straightforward question on this:
"Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?"And what about a requirement on religiously-affiliated employers to cover contraception in their health insurance plans? Support drops a little, but it's still 61%. I thought the inclusion of the phrase "federal requirement" might affect the results a bit, but apparently not.
Support: 66%
Oppose: 26%
Don't Know: 8%
By the reasoning of many congressional Republicans, nearly two-thirds of the country likes contraception access so much, they're willing to endorse an outrageous assault on religious liberty.
All kidding aside, these results are consistent with other recent polls, all of which point in the same direction: the American mainstream agrees with the administration on this issue.....
Update: Greg Sargent has some additional details, including the fact that self-identified Roman Catholics agree with Obama's line, 67% to 25%, and even a majority of self-identified Republicans feel the same way.
Don't look now Catholic Bishops, but your church is not really behind you for the most part. Don't look now Republicans, but the rank and file of your political party isn't behind you EITHER. You might want to think about that a bit further before you start getting too free with the whole 'War' thing. You are clearly on the losing sid of that battle.
First off, Steve Benen always has good stuff ... so it's not a surprise to see him TruthTelling at Maddow's site.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the hypocrisy really was on display yesterday when Darryl Issa called a hearing for the Government Oversight Committee on the subject of the Obama Administration's contraception policy ... the fact that they invited five men for the first panel of witnesses (followed by another panel with four men ... and Dr. Laura Champion, the Medical Director of Health Services at Calvin College --
Calvin College has already expressed anger that the federal mandate “elevates contraception and abortive drugs to the level of preventative care.” ). That type of male-dominated oversight into women's health had not been done ... well since January when it was done in Israel and they did not permit a female doctor to participate.
Sad, but this type of "oversight" is what the Republican-managed House does ... Issa is holding up the Postal Reform ... and last week, John Kline (R-MN-02) held a hearing on Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board ... first, the House has no responsibility or authority over the selection of NLRB members and Mr. Kline acknowledged that the President does have a constitutional authority to make recess appointments (however arguing that there was not a recess yet they used being on a recess for why other matters could not be done.) Mr. Kline's language suggested that these new members were ... well remember "Heck-a-job Brownie" - more or less diminishing their credentials ... even though they were all trained lawyers that had worked on labor issues for decades including a Republican lawyer who had previously served as counsel to the NRLB.
Voters should realize that elections have consequences ... and the consequences are that Republicans do not have any interest in responsible government ... but instead focus on obstructing government.
DG, the bishops are fully aware that many members of the church use birth control, that does not change the fact that the Church still teaches that it is morally wrong. What the bishops are objecting to is the Church paying for something it considers morally wrong. The "compromise" offered by Obama really means nothing. Insurance companies pay for everything out of premiums and the Church will still be paying the premiums. Also more than half the Christian churches in the country are self insured, many of them just to offer coverage that does not violate their moral teachings. So then how is the rule not forcing a church to pay for something they consider wrong. The other thing is the Catholic Church and other conservative Christian churches believe that life begins at conception and one of the covered birth control pills is the morning after pill. Personally I don't think it is a war on religion but I do think it is a calculated effort to divide the Catholic vote in an election yr where the administration knows it is going to have trouble getting re-elected.
ReplyDeleteTuck, the church has been providing contraception coverage at some 70% of catholic organizations including many churches for decades.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pseudo issue. More than that, their roles as employers is separate from their religious role.
The argument was made decades ago by the Bob Jones University policy against admitting blacks on the basis of religious beliefs. There is a limit, and properly so, on how far one can enforce their own religious beliefs.
No one should be forced to take birth control against their wishes. But no one should be prevented from exercising their own conscience either, and in this case, there is not only substantial support among Catholics and Catholic organizations, THERE HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.
This is a counterfeit republican issue, a made up fuss, not a genuine controversy. MANY of the Republicans currently speaking out have supported, legislated or signed this EXACT kind of legislation decades ago themselves.
THAT is rank hypocrisy, nothing else. It is an attempt to disinform people, to make a false and ugly and frankly very stupid and unfair, untrue accusation against Obama.
Rush Limbaugh has tried to claim that this was a controversy created by Obama to distract from the economy.
Quite the opposite, it is a REPUBLICAN attempt to create a wedge issue because their other wedge issues are falling flat this cycle. The Republican voters don't like the candidates, and aren't supporting the far right that has hijacked the party. This was an attempt to change that, and it is failing miserably.
As well it should.
Tuck, I would argue to you that the rights of freedom of religion and conscience pertain to the individual.
ReplyDeleteObama is protecting the rights of the individual to choose.
So long as the Roman Catholic church is getting 60+ % of their budget for things like charities, and I have no idea what the amount is in terms of paying towards their educational institutions at all levels, they can choose to recognize the rights of the individual to choose birth control or not -- or give up that money.
I don't see them letting go of one thin dime given that choice.
They are still free to advocate, to persuade, to preach. They should not be free to dictate the insurance benefits that are offered to employees.
Or if they must, then pay all of their employees alike and let them buy their own insurance on the open market -- but they won't do that, because it would cost them more money.
Which leads me to believe this is a belief given lip service more than a serious matter of faith.
DG, right on.
DeleteNobody is being forced to have an abortion. Nobody is being forced to use any form of contraceptive. Employees of religious institutions are merely being given the right to make choices - the same choices that employees of secular institutions have.
The problem is that religious institutions do not trust their employees to make the "right" decisions. So it's not about choice. It's about control.
And it's not government that wants the control.
Hi Leslie! You're absolutely right about respecting the rights of individuals. In the past there were instances where religious affiliated entities like Bob Jones university wanted to be able to continue segregation based on their religious belief that races should be separated. That didn't work out for them.
DeleteIf a religion believed Jews killed Christ, they still could not discriminate against them in hiring. Nor can religions that believe in dominionism, that women should not be in positions of authority over men, legally discriminate against women in hiring or promotion. We don't allow religions that practice polygamy to engage in bigamy either.
We have limits on ALL rights, including religious rights.
It is about government control in one way; the religious right wants to extend their control over government. We are NOT a theocracy, and however much Nut Gingrich wants to use the term secular as a criticism, as a derogatory term, it is GOOD thing for us to be a secular nation.
No one is preventing any of the women who work at Catholic institutions from obtaining birth control. The bishops object to them having to pay for the birth control. Would they ever make a law saying a Jewish or Muslim charity could not operate a soup kitchen unless they served pork? The government still gives Quakers exemptions where if they serve in the military it is in a non-combat role because their religion does not permit any exceptions to the 5th commandment. And a big sticking point for the bishops are the morning after pills that are considered birth control by the administration and a possible abortion by the Church. Nothing about the exemption that is in place prevents anyone from getting birth control just the people who object to it do not have to pay for it.
DeleteHi Ttucker,
DeleteDid you hear William Lori, the Bishop of Bridgeport, Ct., in the House Oversight Committee hearing and “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.” ?
It was ridiculous ... as he posed the potential of a new law that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate. Supportors the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”
That is the real testimony ... Darryl Issa actually brought forward a witness to offer that argument.
Doesn't that tell you that the Republican-managed House could care less about jobs, taxes, or anything else ... there sole mission is to seize any opportunity to make Obama look bad.
No one would call me a Bible scholar but I do remember one story :
"Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."
Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
Of course there was that other story about Jesus and the moneychangers ... which essentially says that Business should not be done in the Church.
So is the problem here that the Church is inserting itself into Business and is now objecting to the Government requiring Businesses to comply to various labor regulations effecting benefits ?
IMO, the Government is not requiring anyone to use birth control or any other services, but since the Church runs Businesses it should comply to those regulations.
The Church can still counsel its members about its beliefs ... (and if you have read about Mitt Romney's stint as Bishop, you know that he took an active role in counseling members against having abortions even when doctors recommended it ... and promoted that single-Mothers give their children up for adoption.)
But if the religious theory of Free Will holds, it would be up to the member to decide whether to follow that advice.
Just curious …
ReplyDeleteis it a War ON Religion … or a War BY Religion ?
For discussion sake, let’s ignore the fanatics like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church who took his case to the Supreme Court and Florida Pastor Terry Jones burning the Koran, but it appears to me that there are some efforts by some-religious minded people against other religions --- “mainstream” dominant religions -- such as Catholic and Protestant -- versus the others.
As the Republican Party determines its nominee, notice how much attention is given to religion and who can get the support of certain religious groups (the pandering to Jewish voters in Florida was over-the-top.)
How many said they prayed to God … or even better, God told them to run ?
And what is God telling them ?
Did you see the Rick Santorum quote -- “We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
Wow … so Protestants are in shambles … (I guess that explains the Lutheran Bishop endorsing same-sex marriage.)
Did you know that Mitt Romney wanted to include a spire with a gold-leafed statue of Moroni on a temple that he helped build in Massachusetts ( Moroni is the angel who Mormons believe led Joseph Smith to a set of gold plates that Smith translated into the Book of Mormon) ? Romney wanted it but the community did not … and it was Ted Kennedy who advocated religious tolerance encouraging that it be permitted (and it eventually was).
Consider that when thinking about the NYC Muslim center that was built near Ground Zero and the protests against one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee … including protests by a minister who campaigned for President -- Herman Cain.
Think about Tim Pawlenty - who was raised a Catholic -- and converted to become an Evangelical (was it an early sign that he wanted a political career?)
As politicians appeal for votes from religious groups and religious leaders, shouldn’t we expect the religious leaders to want to influence who the candidate is ?
How many candidates knelt at the altar of the Iowa Family Leader ?
Remember, the confab in Texas to decide that Santorum was the man over Gingrich and Perry ?
Did you know that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accompanied Steve King (R-IA) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on a trip to Israel ?
To be continued
Is religion becoming more political ?
ReplyDeleteSo what was the means that the Catholic Church used to express its opinion … instructing local churches to read a letter protesting the government policy … the Church launched the offensive … gathering its flock to protest a government decision.
It is time that politicians embrace the John F Kennedy mantra “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”
Well, Raymond Cravaack (R-MN-08) obviously disagrees considering his speech on the House floor “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services order requiring every Catholic institution larger than a single church—and even including some single churches—to pay for contraceptives, sterilization, and morning-after abortifacients for its employees is directly contrary to the Catholic faith and an act of federal aggression.”
IMO, IF a church is going to employ people, it must conform to the laws … same as any other organization.
Should a church be exempt from paying its maintenance man at least minimum wage ?
Does a church have to provide insurance or pension benefits -- No. Does a church have to provide paid time off for workers to perform jury duty or go to vote -- No. Could they -- sure, but if they do they must comply with minimum wage laws.
OK, think about this … in Minnesota (and other states) an employer must grant paid leaves of absence to an employee who seeks to undergo a medical procedure to donate bone marrow … and Christian Scientists do not believe in medical science … if a someone is employed by the Christian Science Church and wants to donate bone marrow, should the Church be exempt from paying them for the lost time ? My answer is no … the law should be the same for all employers.
Or, how about the case of Daniel Hauser … the boy from Sleepy Eye MN … it took action by a Minnesota Court to require that he receive medical treatment for childhood Hodgkin's lymphoma that his parents religion did not permit … as a result of treatments, the boy has been declared cancer-free … while the father has died from an aggressive form of leukemia. The Court could not stop the father from determining his own medical options but it could step-in an overrule parental rights when the child’s health was concerned … was the Government Wrong to interject itself against church doctrine ?
Thus, IMO, there is a War BY Religion with Politicians as foot soldiers.
AND, some politicians are using the Catholic Church objections as a means to attack Government Healthcare … some may fervently denounce abortions and some may even denounce condoms … but this issue is too tempting for the anti-Obamacare crowd not to exploit.
For example, the foot soldiers could care less about cost or human comfort, when states like Virginia and Texas would require women considering abortions to be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced, just so they can show the woman the developing fetus.
Sorry for the rant, but it just bugs me.
In this dreadful Holy War on Religion, of Religion, and by Religion, I’ve had enough! Maybe even too much. I’m surrendering! ’Cause I’m gonna start my OWN religion, and get in on the good stuff: tax exemptions, and lots of taxpayer money to do what I want… most definitely! Hey Newt -wanna join? We’re gonna have open marriages and multiple wives and all SORTS of neat stuff that you’re just gonna love! But NO nasty stoning of adulterers. Promise! As for Santorum- he’d make a fine preacher…in fact, we’ll make him Saint Santorum. And fix his google search. As for Mr. Obama, obviously, we’ll need to demonize him even further. And his dog too. Mitt and Ron, hey, just for you guys: no taxes AT ALL …and human sacrifice of illegal aliens. Televised. Whoooppee! What a country! 
ReplyDeleteBy the way, PLEASE don’t mention the REASON that Mitt Romney’s dad was born in Mexico (i.e. the fact that Mitt’s Mormon Grand-dad LEFT the United States in the 1880’s and went to Mexico because laws against polygamy were passed in the U.S. ...and being a Mormon, Mitt’s Grand-dad wanted to keep his multiple wives). SO… if we follow the “logic” of the people crying crocodile tears about a non-existent “war on religion”, then the U.S. should have allowed polygamy (and who knows what else) just because a particular religion claimed it as their belief. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Hi Stanchaz! Welcome!
DeleteI think you represent the mainstream. If the GOP wants to allow itself to be hijacked by the religious right, including the likes of Bachmann - who was told to quit, and who lost support in Iowa because segments of the religious right didn't think a woman should be in a position of that much authority over men - then they are out of touch and will lose, badly. It is time they woke up; we need the good things of political parties counterbalancing each other.
The right is just nuts, off the cliff, so far out they no longer do that. Enough already.
Hi Stanchaz !
ReplyDeleteUmmm … I am not so sure about that Romney-Mexican storyline … Yes, the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 did impact the family … but the story (source is 1948 book by Thomas Cottam Romney entitled Life Story of Miles P. Romney) is that Brigham Young told young Miles (Mitt’s great-grandfather) to marry .. And being an obedient believer, he complied. Then in 1867, Brigham Young said “Brother Miles, I want you at take another wife” … so the choice was obey the US Law or obey the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints … Romney reasoned that the legislation violated the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee that all men had rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of freedom of religion, and married again (divorced, and married again and again).
The reason why Miles fled to Mexico was to avoid a marshal who was looking for him for lying about the title to the land he was residing on … so with Annie (his youngest wife) aboard a wagon ( and Miles hiding under a quilt in case the authorities caught him), they went off to Mexico leaving his wives Hannah and Catharine and their children behind. Two years later both wives and 17 children were reunited in Mexico. Later at age 53, Miles married again … and in total produced 30 children … including a grand child who was born in 1907 named George Romney. 27 years after Miles Romney fled America, his family returned when the Mexican revolution came to their community … In all 2,300 Mormon refugees would leave Mexico … and who paid for this “flight from the revolution” ? The U.S. Army supplied rations and loaned tents from Fort Bliss while Congress voted $100,000 for their transportation and relief.
George Romney would later say that his family was among the “first displaced persons of the twentieth century. I was kicked out of Mexico when I was five years old because the Mexicans were envious of the fact that my people became prosperous.”
Today, envy still seems to be a problem for the Romney clan … as demonstrated by WannabeCEO-in-Chief Mitt Romney’s comment to Matt Lauer :
You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a President encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus 1 percent—and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1 percent—you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.
So what will the American people "reject … let’s see, instead of obeying the law or legally challenging the law, the family relocates to Mexico never giving up their citizenship and when they are faced with a threat in a foreign country, rely on the US Taxpayers to help out … then once you’re here become a lobbyist … use that as a path to become executive at a automobile company called American Motors that eventually became part of Chrysler … and Chrysler received a government loan financed by the US Taxpayers … which has now been denounced by Mitt Romney … yes, America needs Mitt Romney someone who clearly has never been assisted by the American Taxpayer (now, don’t get be going on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation funds required because of Bain Capital transactions.)
Yes, there is some thinking here that needs to be rejected ... including the right to control woman's bodies in the name of Religion.
Here is my question. Forget all about which political party did what and which Church objected to it.
ReplyDeleteShould the US government be able to step in and force a religion, any religion, to do something it considers morally wrong or is that a violation of the first amendment? I realize there are cases where the government tells religions it cannot do certain things (sacrifices, stonings, limb removals) but those are rare and very few in the US even want to do those things.
Hi Ttucker !
DeleteThe question might be better phrased as : Does the Government have a responsibility to protect the individual over Church doctrine ?
As I allude to above, consider the case of Daniel Hauser ... a 13 boy who had a treatable form of cancer but his Church did not permit it ... County Services got involved and took the case to court ... meanwhile his Mother grabbed the child and fled the state ... eventually, they were found and brought back ... treatments given ... and now the boy is cancer-free. A side note, his Father has now died from cancer ...
The Government did not step in when an adult was involved but it did inject itself into the situation to protect the life of a child.
And, as you can suspect, the Taxpayers footed the bills ... for the legal action and the medical treatment ...
But medical situations are not the only area where the role of Government in protecting children from religious institutions has been questioned. Are you familiar with the Keep Children Safe Act ? John Kline (R-MN-02) rejects it because it interferes with the ability for religious schools to discipline children ... other Republicans have supported after the cases were brought to their attention of children being locked in closets, and restrained.
YES, IMO, Government has a responsiblity.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteI'll answer your question directly, but I want you to reccognize, your question isn't the heart of this point. Th eheart of this point is that there is no war on religion by the left. That's aboslute fiction, utter fantasy. Every President of the 20th and 21st century was Christian. If anything, we are more orthodox county today, by far, than we were even 100 years ago. The message from the "evangelicals" and Catholic conservaties is purly political diatribe said in attempt to wrap themselves in Religius clothing and claim the church and God are on their side. Not only is that offensiv beyond description, it's heresy at it's base. No one, not the Pope, not Ghandi, not Mother Teresa, not Thomas Aquinas knows the mind of God (who was virtually excommunicated for inferring as much). No where in the bible does it say life begins at conception, that's an invention of the church, nothing more, nothing less. It's an invention of a church looking to control it's flock, nothing more, nothing less. But, first, your answer...
The Constituion of this counttry has two points it makes about religion, first, that Congress shall make NO act respecting the establishment of Religion or preventing the FREE epression thereof. Do you seriously consider prevennint NON-belivers who work at a facility in part funded by the Catholic churrch from obtaining birth control the FREE expression of Religion? I do not. It is their enforcement upon others their views. So, in short, the answer is, the government is right to say you have the right to FREE expression, and should respect it, but this isn't free expression. Attmempting to confine the discussion to that point is a false argument.
Further, it violates the first part to even entertain the idea. Congress (and therefore the President) cannot respect our (or anyone's) religious practice in determining health care for OTHERS. It is your practice, so practice it. It is not mine, and I do not, not for one minute, think you have the right to fail to pay for medical care for other people whether they get to use birth contro (which they otherwise cant afford)) simply IF you chose to donate/grant to their employer some money.
lastly, please consider your position on the following, if a church says technology should not be used, such as some Mennonites and Amish feel, and a child has cancer, and the child obviously does not havve tthe knowledge or judggement to make an informed decision at the level of an adult, should the religion, and their parents, be allowed to deny the child care such that the child dies? Is THAT free epression, is the government looking out for the will of those who otherwise are noot given a chioce in fact exactly NOT respecting the establishment of that religioous preference above and over those who otherwiise might very well chose a diffferent route.k This has been tried in court and foound, time and again, to be NOT a violation of religious separation precisely when and because the child cannot make an informed decision, e.g. the child has not been given a choice. How is this differeent, those who are not part of the Catholic faith are not given a choice about their own heealth care here. This isn't about repsecting Catholocism, it's abbout Catholics NOT repsecting others.
Pen, it is the point. Looking at your example about the Amish and technology, is the government forcing the Amish Church to pay for the technology. The Catholic Church can do absolutely nothing to stop their employees from using birth control. They can do what all religions do and say we believe this is wrong and you shouldn't do it. If their followers or employees choose to ignore that they can. The whole argument of the bishops is the Church should not be forced to pay for it. If the employees choose to pay for it themselves there is nothing stopping that. Like I said there are limits on the first amendment, military chaplains are not allowed to talk about things like upcoming battle plans and such, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you can't let a churches practices harm others. The Catholic Church not paying for contraceptives does not harm anyone so the government telling them they have to is not justified.
DeleteThe Church denying women the same care, effective contraception, the full and proper reproductive choices DOES harm women. It harms every woman who doesn't want to be pregnant but who cannot afford contraception - as is the case with many women, now more than ever in this era of wealth inequality. Without this kind of coverage, cnotraception can be as high as $100 a month that women don't have, or that would take away precious dollars from the mouths of their existing children.
DeleteTo assert that this is NOT harming anyone is a farce, a terrible, horrible LIE, it is just more right wing and religious propaganda.
The church is still free to preach their failed we-need-more-catholics not-in-the-Bible doctrine, they aren't free as employers to FORCE their preferences on women, including their own faithful, who reject that doctrine.
We don't let separate religions dictate public policy, including public health policy. This is an essential public health policy, not a religious issue.
Further, in over 60% of cases where contraception like birth control was prescribed by doctors for other hormone treatment reasons, NOT as contraception, it has been denied by such organizations, resulting in horrible cancer related and other outcomes.
Clearly I need to run the testimony that the right wing dissident suppressors did NOT allow in the Issa hearings, (damned jack-booted thugs who have hijacked our legislative processes).
Dear Tuck. YES, the government taxes the Amish the same way they tax everyone else, and YES, some of that money goes to pay for technology; it is not separated out in some magical way to suit their preferences.
DeleteThe Amish can choose to accept or reject technology, but they don't get to choose what they pay for. Their taxes paid for the federal funds that affect the internet, as an example. No one forces them to go on it, but they DO pay for it along with the rest of us, regardless of how they live. Their taxes helped pay for the space program too.
From the web site Amish America:
ReplyDeletehttp://amishamerica.com/do-amish-pay-taxes/
"One of a number of myths about the Amish is that they don’t pay taxes. Though the Amish may not always agree with the actions of the government, they consistently respect the laws of the state, which includes paying appropriate taxes.
Taxes the Amish pay include federal and state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and public school taxes, even though most Amish send their children to privately run schools (which they also fund)."
Paying for contraception is EXACTLY like the Amish paying taxes for things they don't like or don't choose to use.