15 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Thursday, May 23, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
I have close family that are JW’s but I don’t dare ask anything about their church. Even without asking I get JW literature, CDs, scriptures, magazines, etc. It doesn’t take much to encourage them. Too risky for me to ask. |
You totally need to ask! |
http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/things-jehovahs-witnesses-cant-do.php |
Curious to see if this also makes the LDS church (so not to confuse with the Catholics) cover birth control as well. |
NewlyHousewife, don’t you need to be a temple recommend-holding member to work for the LDS church? |
Newly Housewife, I would assume that if you work directly for the Church itself then this doesn’t affect you. But what about KSL or BYU or any of the other enterprises owned by the Church? There is a discussion of this on BCC. |
Buraianto — You generally need to be eligible for a temple recommend to work for the church itself. However, the church does own a number of businesses (for example, radio station KSL) that hire nonmembers (and, I assume, are required by law to do so). A few years ago, the editor of the church-owned Deseret News was a Christian Scientist. Newly Housewife — I assume that the rule would apply to the arms of the LDS church that hire or serve nonmembers to a significant degree. But I don’t know how substantial those are — certainly nothing like the numerous hospitals that various Catholic units operate. |
Employees that work for churches aren’t covered. Side organizations (hospitals, schools) are covered int the rule. If you work at the COB, you’re not covered. |
I don’t know how I feel about all this. But it doesn’t sound good. It sounds like he’s making this a fight against religion. My sister-in-law was a JW, but I don’t know anything about their beliefs except they don’t believe in celebrating holidays. Boy, what a mess. |
And….what about Christian Scientists? I never thought about all this before. |
Wait… the exchange between comment #4 and #5 makes me have to ask… what is the LDS official position on birth control… I thought they were cool with it? |
Eric #7: Ah, right. Thanks. |
SR, they are “cool” with it to a degree, although would rather discourage it. The problem comes, say, when the LDS Church is forced to hand out condoms. There isn’t a ban on that particularly, but they are often associated with promiscuity. So, this reaches farther than simply a challenge against religions who “ban” things while others are less strict. It also touches on those things that a religion would rather discourage or distrust. On top of that, one religion might be forced to do something against their beliefs that others don’t, but what happens when they do touch on something that your currently unassociated Church happens to view as forbidden? The point is that the laws are forcing religions (and large ones like the Catholic Church) to go underground and private. All religious people and institutions then become bound to either change their theology (The constitution prohibits laws like that) or associate only with their own kind as a direct agent outside of the public square. I read one Op-ed where the person said they were critical of Mormons taking care of only their own (not particularly true, but whatever), but with the new law it seemed actually a smart move. |
Incrementalism. It’s all about incrementalism. Little by little. I remember when it was ludicrous to expect that health insurance pay for contraception. Sex is not an unexpected injury or illness. You -plan- on it. I remember when health insurance to cover a normal pregnancy and delivery was also ludicrous. Insurance was to cover something that went wrong and caused extra expense, that’s the risk that was insured against. But now, all costs of pregnancy and delivery, even normal and usual costs, are part of insurance. Pregnancy and delivery are covered as if they were an “accident or illness.” But health insurance has morphed into health _coverage_, in which _all_ health-related expenses are paid for out of the coverage plan. Are we getting to the point where toothpaste and floss are to be paid for out of health care insurance/coverage? Health insurance morphed from becoming a benefit for working people (and something you could also buy on your own) to a _right_ that people are entitled to. Gone are the days of charity where compassionate people donated money so that deserving poor people could be taken care of. Charity, in the strictest sense, is gone. Health care is now a _right_, such that those who can’t afford it have a moral claim upon everyone else to pay for it. There’s no concept of charity, the money is taken from one group of people, whether they want to donate or not, and spent on another group of people. This is an example of government *replacing* religion. This ruling is a natural follow-on to or continuation of the same path as our country took with food. Instead of having charities feed the poor with voluntary donations, we’ve deemed food to be a “right”, and the government now takes the money from one group of people and uses it to feed another group of people. Yes, there still are some private or non-government charities that feed people, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to federal programs. In other words government has replaced church and charity. And when the government does it, by way of taxes, the moral and spiritual benefit of the giver (now the taxpayer) is gone. It’s not a voluntary contribution. There is no “blessing” if you will. Even disregarding the spiritual realm, there is no feeling of having done something good, a voluntary sacrifice, for the benefit of another. And on the other end, there is no emotional or spiritual blessing to the receiver, they come to view it as their right or due. There’s no motivation to become self-sufficient if they are physically able. They don’t view the gift or bettter said “transfer” as a sacrifice on the part of the giver/taxpayer. There is no conveyance of of the idea that someone somewhere else made a sacrifice for them. LDS church leaders in the 1930′s understood this well. It wasn’t just about discerning the deserving poor from the leeches, or making people work for their dole if they were able to. There’s a whole emotional/spiritual side to it that has eroded our country’s social fabric. I’m all for taking care of the poor, for charity, for sacrifice to help others. But having the federal government in the charity business is not what the founding fathers had in mind. It’s not in the Constitution. And as we’ve seen over the past 80 years of this creep towards socialism, it’s a bad, bad, bad thing. Other countries in Europe who’ve tried this over the past 60 years have seen it fail. Why, oh why are we moving farther along this socialist road when others who’ve tried it are abandoning it? It’s not about taking care of the poor. No one is against that. It’s about using “taking care of the poor” as an excuse for government control over _everybody_. It’s about control. And, as we now see, it’s not just about the government controlling your wallet, now government wants to control your _religion_. “Oh, it’s not your *church*. It’s just your church-owned outside businesses like hospitals and school.” Incrementalism, folks. Incrementalism. Camel nose in the tent. |
#13 gotcha, thanks for that answer Jettboy. |
