I'm still trying to figure out exactly how this issue relates to religious freedoms, to be honest.
I suggest you write to your alma mater and let them know why you won't be donating to them in the future. Perhaps if enough people are vocal about this, folks will get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize how rediculous it is to limit the options of their staff members.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how this issue relates to religious freedoms, to be honest.
I suggest you write to your alma mater and let them know why you won't be donating to them in the future. Perhaps if enough people are vocal about this, folks will get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize how rediculous it is to limit the options of their staff members.
Catholic doctrine provides that all forms of artificial birth control are against God's will. I'm not Catholic (and I'm favor of birth control), but I see the First Amendment issue very clearly. The free exercise clause--the government cannot infringe on the free exercise of one's religion, and forcing an organization to do something against its religion is just that. Or that's how the argument goes.
Post by vanillacourage on May 21, 2012 23:24:11 GMT -5
I don't blame you. I'd reach out to their development office and tell them you will no longer be giving directly to the school and why. Then I would call the financial aid office and ask if there are scholarship funds to which you can contribute, or if your area commonly feeds students to that school you could call a high school nearby and ask to set up a small scholarship for a student who will attend the school in the fall.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how this issue relates to religious freedoms, to be honest.
I suggest you write to your alma mater and let them know why you won't be donating to them in the future. Perhaps if enough people are vocal about this, folks will get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize how rediculous it is to limit the options of their staff members.
Catholic doctrine provides that all forms of artificial birth control are against God's will. I'm not Catholic (and I'm favor of birth control), but I see the First Amendment issue very clearly. The free exercise clause--the government cannot infringe on the free exercise of one's religion, and forcing an organization to do something against its religion is just that. Or that's how the argument goes.
I understand the basic argument. But, coming from the perspective of a godless foreigner it's astonishing that this is possibly a viable argument under any sane rule of law that calls itself independent of religion. It's disgusting to see the inroads to female reproductive rights that are happening in the US, and I find myself at a loss to try and explain the how and why to friends back home when they ask me if everyone here has lost their minds. Because that is literally how this issue is seen back home.
All in all, the whole situation just makes me frustrated. There's nothing I can do about it, but it still will impact my friends and family here.
OP never said she had immediate plans to stop donating. If I were you, domerjen, I definitely would though.
PP's had good suggestions about how to divert your money elsewhere so it still helps students but sends a message to the institution. I think if enough alumni (the $$$$ ones, at least) take a stand they might change their tune.
different issues, but i feel the same way about my alma matter. it was a denominational school (bible college, no less) and while it was a great education on the practical matters, i don't agree with their social stances. thus, i don't donate.
Can you give a restricted gift? To a particular department or scholarship fund for example? It does suck that they have those views, but at the same time, there are likely students there who don't have a choice of what college they attend and need the additional help
eta - could you do a scholarship fund in your local high school to be given to a student with x,y,z qualities? h and i have decided to do that when we have the money since we (more he) works with teenagers in our community/high school. we set the criteria and the school gives us 3 candidates and their profiles (they have to write an application) to select from.
I attended a private, Christian liberal arts college for undergrad. I had a great experience - traveled the world, met lifelong friends, received a solid education that opened doors for me to go on to one of the best graduate programs on the country, and met my husband there.
I started giving money to the school shortly after graduation. However as the years passed, we grew increasingly uncomfortable with many of the school's stances on social issues, particularly homosexuality. At some point the Princeton Review named it the least friendly school to homosexuals and that was the last straw. I called and told them exactly why I would no longer be supporting financially and wrote a letter too.
On one level it's sad to me because I see so many wonderful aspects of the institution. Yet on the other hand I cannot consciously support an institution that I believe stands on the wrong side of civil rights and justice. It's just too important to me.
We took the money and increased our monthly donation to a micro finance organization that we can be proud of.
I would look into donating to your department or Greek organization on campus. That's what I've been doing b/c I don't agree with the direction our President has taken with the school overall.
I understand the basic argument. But, coming from the perspective of a godless foreigner it's astonishing that this is possibly a viable argument under any sane rule of law that calls itself independent of religion. It's disgusting to see the inroads to female reproductive rights that are happening in the US, and I find myself at a loss to try and explain the how and why to friends back home when they ask me if everyone here has lost their minds. Because that is literally how this issue is seen back home.
All in all, the whole situation just makes me frustrated. There's nothing I can do about it, but it still will impact my friends and family here.
I guess I see it differently. I'm very liberal, pro-choice, pro-birth control, and yet I think that forcing a religious institution to do something against its fundamental beliefs is a total violation of the free exercise clause. I'm not sure how forcing a religious institution to do something is being independent of religion. And, the rule of law in the US isn't exactly that it is independent of religion. It is that church and state are separate, and the state cannot infringe on the free exercise of religion.
This is government intrusion in the practice of religion. Birth control needs to be at no cost to the recipient??? That is what is just plain crazy.
No, preventative care needs to be provided at no cost to the employee. Hormonal contraception is considered preventative care for a number of reasons, including many many medical issues not involving pregnancy.
OP, is your college a religious one? I thought there was already a caveat in the health care act that allowed for religious institutions to be exempt from the requirement, and the responsibility passed on to the insurer. Why would they need to sue? Are they self-insured?
I got an email tonight from the pres of our alma mater. They are suing about having to provide contraception. Not surprising, but I'm still pissed.
I like to donate to them, b/c I was able to go because of a decent financial aid package. But, I don't want to support an organization that is going to support taking choices away from their staff.
Gah. I'm so sick of how crappy Catholicism has gotten (always was?).
I don't even know my point. Maybe there is some scholarship organization I should be looking into...
I am Catholic so I get where you are coming from. But I'm sure you know that if you decide to send your $ elsewhere and if you tell them why, it may be informative for the institution but it won't do anything to sway their stance. They are not going to break away from the Church's position b/c their alumni don't agree.
I like the suggestions about donating to a scholarship or another associated group though. If you feel that strongly about it.
Domer, you know I work in educational fundraising. I think you should definitely write a letter to the school expressing your thoughts.
I also think that if you want to specifically donate to financial aid/scholarship, that you can probably make a restricted gift that does that. I suspect Notre Dame requires a minimum gift of $50K -$100K to endow a scholarship so clearly that is out of your reach ( I assume!), but I am sure that there is still a restricted, current use financial aid account that your annual contributions can go to.
Or, if you are pissed off enough that you don't want to donate at all, you should absolutely send them a letter why. If enough alumni send in letters like that to the development office, I am sure that they will ge tpassed on to the President's office.
I understand the basic argument. But, coming from the perspective of a godless foreigner it's astonishing that this is possibly a viable argument under any sane rule of law that calls itself independent of religion. It's disgusting to see the inroads to female reproductive rights that are happening in the US, and I find myself at a loss to try and explain the how and why to friends back home when they ask me if everyone here has lost their minds. Because that is literally how this issue is seen back home.
All in all, the whole situation just makes me frustrated. There's nothing I can do about it, but it still will impact my friends and family here.
I guess I see it differently. I'm very liberal, pro-choice, pro-birth control, and yet I think that forcing a religious institution to do something against its fundamental beliefs is a total violation of the free exercise clause. I'm not sure how forcing a religious institution to do something is being independent of religion. And, the rule of law in the US isn't exactly that it is independent of religion. It is that church and state are separate, and the state cannot infringe on the free exercise of religion.
I'm very much a First Amendment purist, though.
But they're not forcing anyone to actually take birth control. If BC is against your religious conscience, then don't take it. But let's make it accessible to everyone.
IMO, this is just another example of why we need a single payer health care system in this country and that health insurance should not be tied to your employer. YMMV though.
I think the Catholic church has gotten better over the years, not worse.
Doesn't mean I agree with them, though. I think that some of their stances have come to light, and appear as if they have become harsher, as society as a whole has become more "open", and has evolved.
But they're not forcing anyone to actually take birth control. If BC is against your religious conscience, then don't take it. But let's make it accessible to everyone.
IMO, this is just another example of why we need a single payer health care system in this country and that health insurance should not be tied to your employer. YMMV though.
They would be forced to pay for it, and that's their objection. Should a religious institution be forced to pay for something that runs contrary to its fundamental beliefs? I guess many say yes. I'm not so sure.
The thing that really pisses me off is that there are some catholic schools which were previously providing contraception in their health care plans. Now all of a sudden they are changing it? Why? Plus there are plenty of major catholic institutions in certain states that have been required to cover family planning by state law and no one seemed to care before.
Post by thedutchgirl on May 22, 2012 8:10:13 GMT -5
I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression that Catholic schools generally didn't provide contraception coverage in health plans. If they did in the past, and now are objecting, that is unusual, although I'm surprised they ever paid.
To OP: please write a letter and let them know how you feel. In the meantime, choosing an external scholarship organization, even if through an alumni group so you ensure the money goes to a ND student, is a good idea. Whether you continue to donate or not, I would write the letter.
The reason catholic universities are not exempted under the religious exception is that the majority of their activities are not primarily religious in nature. Keep in mind that these are institutions that are *heavily* subsidized by our federal tax dollars, including non-profit status exempting them from taxation, huge quantities of financial aid that enable their tuition prices, and large amounts of research funding. These are institutions that actively recruit and employ non-catholic faculty, staff, and students not for religious reasons but to increase excellence and compete generally with all institutions in the academic marketplace.
These organizations are asking to be exempt from regulations guiding all other employers, including those who are virtually indistinguishable from them in the services they provide and population they serve. And, no, the regulations do not force a religious entity to directly provide or a religious person to directly consume birth control. It merely classifies birth control as a preventive service that must be covered as such by the insurance plan provided. A law already on the books for years in most states, by the way. The decision to 'sin' or not still lies with the individual as it always, always should.
The Church has an official position against the use of birth control, sure. Emphasizing, teaching and evangelizing that belief is one thing and they are free until the cows come home to use all their means to persuade their flock to abide by those beliefs and shame those who don't. Actually seeking to control *access* to the ability for an individual to choose to ignore that belief is entirely another (obviously, as 98% of catholic women already utilize birth control). The church doesn't believe in homosexual acts either, so do we think that if a catholic university refused to admit homosexuals that would be okay under the first amendment? What if you replace that with skin color? Freedom to freely practice religion does not equal freedom to discriminate however you want as long as you tie it to your religion.
I am a huge supporter of the first amendment. However, it does not give *any* religious entity a blanket right supersede individual rights. Where these things come into disagreement it becomes complex and the large amount of public money supporting these institutions and the fact that they are not distinguishable from non-religious institutions in the service and product they are providing is a very important factor in this case. They have chosen to exist in the general marketplace, eligible for all the rights and privileges thereof, both employing and serving large numbers of non-adherents to their faith. With those rights and privileges come responsibilities. Pursue the democratic and judicial process to fight a regulation you would rather avoid all you want because it is legal and in your interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it is obviously irrational and unconstitutional for the federal government to presume that two employers serving the same purpose and providing a non-religious service should be accountable in the same ways. And I'm not even going to touch the topic of catholic hospitals where the repercussions are FAR more horrifying.
IMO they did you a favor. Now you know that they're planning to do this. You can either 1) agree with their argument and continue to support the school; 2) disagree with their argument yet continue to support the school for other reasons; or 3) disagree with their argument and choose to donate your $ elsewhere. Better than continuing to donate only to find out they were doing something you didn't agree with.
To OP: please write a letter and let them know how you feel. In the meantime, choosing an external scholarship organization, even if through an alumni group so you ensure the money goes to a ND student, is a good idea. Whether you continue to donate or not, I would write the letter.
The reason catholic universities are not exempted under the religious exception is that the majority of their activities are not primarily religious in nature. Keep in mind that these are institutions that are *heavily* subsidized by our federal tax dollars, including non-profit status exempting them from taxation, huge quantities of financial aid that enable their tuition prices, and large amounts of research funding. These are institutions that actively recruit and employ non-catholic faculty, staff, and students not for religious reasons but to increase excellence and compete generally with all institutions in the academic marketplace.
These organizations are asking to be exempt from regulations guiding all other employers, including those who are virtually indistinguishable from them in the services they provide and population they serve. And, no, the regulations do not force a religious entity to directly provide or a religious person to directly consume birth control. It merely classifies birth control as a preventive service that must be covered as such by the insurance plan provided. A law already on the books for years in most states, by the way. The decision to 'sin' or not still lies with the individual as it always, always should.
The Church has an official position against the use of birth control, sure. Emphasizing, teaching and evangelizing that belief is one thing and they are free until the cows come home to use all their means to persuade their flock to abide by those beliefs and shame those who don't. Actually seeking to control *access* to the ability for an individual to choose to ignore that belief is entirely another (obviously, as 98% of catholic women already utilize birth control). The church doesn't believe in homosexual acts either, so do we think that if a catholic university refused to admit homosexuals that would be okay under the first amendment? What if you replace that with skin color? Freedom to freely practice religion does not equal freedom to discriminate however you want as long as you tie it to your religion.
I am a huge supporter of the first amendment. However, it does not give *any* religious entity a blanket right supersede individual rights. Where these things come into disagreement it becomes complex and the large amount of public money supporting these institutions and the fact that they are not distinguishable from non-religious institutions in the service and product they are providing is a very important factor in this case. They have chosen to exist in the general marketplace, eligible for all the rights and privileges thereof, both employing and serving large numbers of non-adherents to their faith. With those rights and privileges come responsibilities. Pursue the democratic and judicial process to fight a regulation you would rather avoid all you want because it is legal and in your interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it is obviously irrational and unconstitutional for the federal government to presume that two employers serving the same purpose and providing a non-religious service should be accountable in the same ways. And I'm not even going to touch the topic of catholic hospitals where the repercussions are FAR more horrifying.
I understand the basic argument. But, coming from the perspective of a godless foreigner it's astonishing that this is possibly a viable argument under any sane rule of law that calls itself independent of religion. It's disgusting to see the inroads to female reproductive rights that are happening in the US, and I find myself at a loss to try and explain the how and why to friends back home when they ask me if everyone here has lost their minds. Because that is literally how this issue is seen back home.
All in all, the whole situation just makes me frustrated. There's nothing I can do about it, but it still will impact my friends and family here.
I guess I see it differently. I'm very liberal, pro-choice, pro-birth control, and yet I think that forcing a religious institution to do something against its fundamental beliefs is a total violation of the free exercise clause. I'm not sure how forcing a religious institution to do something is being independent of religion. And, the rule of law in the US isn't exactly that it is independent of religion. It is that church and state are separate, and the state cannot infringe on the free exercise of religion.
I'm very much a First Amendment purist, though.
It's probably worth mentioning that I went to a Catholic High School that was mandated by the govenment to provide education on forms of birth control, including barrier, scheduling and hormonal methods.
I guess I don't really see a Catholic School or Hospital as a "religious institute", and because of that can't see how this applies to them. They are a business, an educational or health institute, and certainly they maintain a certain overarching doctrine, but I just can't resolve that with them being part of a church.
The way a "religious institute" is defined may well be different than I am accustomed to, though, which I suspect is where my confusion mostly is sourced.
I also feel that this is approaching a gender rights situation, as well. Male preventative care is not being limited by these institutions, but in particular, female preventative care is. And, as far as I know, some of both gender's preventative care falls into areas of Church doctrine that is considered a sin. The stance shown on this issue smacks of a last ditch effort to try and return genders to more traditional roles, and push women out of the workforce. Or, at least, the workforce at "Catholic" institutions.
To OP: please write a letter and let them know how you feel. In the meantime, choosing an external scholarship organization, even if through an alumni group so you ensure the money goes to a ND student, is a good idea. Whether you continue to donate or not, I would write the letter.
The reason catholic universities are not exempted under the religious exception is that the majority of their activities are not primarily religious in nature. Keep in mind that these are institutions that are *heavily* subsidized by our federal tax dollars, including non-profit status exempting them from taxation, huge quantities of financial aid that enable their tuition prices, and large amounts of research funding. These are institutions that actively recruit and employ non-catholic faculty, staff, and students not for religious reasons but to increase excellence and compete generally with all institutions in the academic marketplace.
These organizations are asking to be exempt from regulations guiding all other employers, including those who are virtually indistinguishable from them in the services they provide and population they serve. And, no, the regulations do not force a religious entity to directly provide or a religious person to directly consume birth control. It merely classifies birth control as a preventive service that must be covered as such by the insurance plan provided. A law already on the books for years in most states, by the way. The decision to 'sin' or not still lies with the individual as it always, always should.
The Church has an official position against the use of birth control, sure. Emphasizing, teaching and evangelizing that belief is one thing and they are free until the cows come home to use all their means to persuade their flock to abide by those beliefs and shame those who don't. Actually seeking to control *access* to the ability for an individual to choose to ignore that belief is entirely another (obviously, as 98% of catholic women already utilize birth control). The church doesn't believe in homosexual acts either, so do we think that if a catholic university refused to admit homosexuals that would be okay under the first amendment? What if you replace that with skin color? Freedom to freely practice religion does not equal freedom to discriminate however you want as long as you tie it to your religion.
I am a huge supporter of the first amendment. However, it does not give *any* religious entity a blanket right supersede individual rights. Where these things come into disagreement it becomes complex and the large amount of public money supporting these institutions and the fact that they are not distinguishable from non-religious institutions in the service and product they are providing is a very important factor in this case. They have chosen to exist in the general marketplace, eligible for all the rights and privileges thereof, both employing and serving large numbers of non-adherents to their faith. With those rights and privileges come responsibilities. Pursue the democratic and judicial process to fight a regulation you would rather avoid all you want because it is legal and in your interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it is obviously irrational and unconstitutional for the federal government to presume that two employers serving the same purpose and providing a non-religious service should be accountable in the same ways. And I'm not even going to touch the topic of catholic hospitals where the repercussions are FAR more horrifying.
*applause*
LOVE this post. I would absolutely write them a letter telling them how you feel. they should think long and hard about putting themselves in the fray like this. it automatically makes me think less of them as a university.
To OP: please write a letter and let them know how you feel. In the meantime, choosing an external scholarship organization, even if through an alumni group so you ensure the money goes to a ND student, is a good idea. Whether you continue to donate or not, I would write the letter.
The reason catholic universities are not exempted under the religious exception is that the majority of their activities are not primarily religious in nature. Keep in mind that these are institutions that are *heavily* subsidized by our federal tax dollars, including non-profit status exempting them from taxation, huge quantities of financial aid that enable their tuition prices, and large amounts of research funding. These are institutions that actively recruit and employ non-catholic faculty, staff, and students not for religious reasons but to increase excellence and compete generally with all institutions in the academic marketplace.
These organizations are asking to be exempt from regulations guiding all other employers, including those who are virtually indistinguishable from them in the services they provide and population they serve. And, no, the regulations do not force a religious entity to directly provide or a religious person to directly consume birth control. It merely classifies birth control as a preventive service that must be covered as such by the insurance plan provided. A law already on the books for years in most states, by the way. The decision to 'sin' or not still lies with the individual as it always, always should.
The Church has an official position against the use of birth control, sure. Emphasizing, teaching and evangelizing that belief is one thing and they are free until the cows come home to use all their means to persuade their flock to abide by those beliefs and shame those who don't. Actually seeking to control *access* to the ability for an individual to choose to ignore that belief is entirely another (obviously, as 98% of catholic women already utilize birth control). The church doesn't believe in homosexual acts either, so do we think that if a catholic university refused to admit homosexuals that would be okay under the first amendment? What if you replace that with skin color? Freedom to freely practice religion does not equal freedom to discriminate however you want as long as you tie it to your religion.
I am a huge supporter of the first amendment. However, it does not give *any* religious entity a blanket right supersede individual rights. Where these things come into disagreement it becomes complex and the large amount of public money supporting these institutions and the fact that they are not distinguishable from non-religious institutions in the service and product they are providing is a very important factor in this case. They have chosen to exist in the general marketplace, eligible for all the rights and privileges thereof, both employing and serving large numbers of non-adherents to their faith. With those rights and privileges come responsibilities. Pursue the democratic and judicial process to fight a regulation you would rather avoid all you want because it is legal and in your interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it is obviously irrational and unconstitutional for the federal government to presume that two employers serving the same purpose and providing a non-religious service should be accountable in the same ways. And I'm not even going to touch the topic of catholic hospitals where the repercussions are FAR more horrifying.
I guess I see it differently. I'm very liberal, pro-choice, pro-birth control, and yet I think that forcing a religious institution to do something against its fundamental beliefs is a total violation of the free exercise clause. I'm not sure how forcing a religious institution to do something is being independent of religion. And, the rule of law in the US isn't exactly that it is independent of religion. It is that church and state are separate, and the state cannot infringe on the free exercise of religion.
I'm very much a First Amendment purist, though.
But they're not forcing anyone to actually take birth control. If BC is against your religious conscience, then don't take it. But let's make it accessible to everyone.
IMO, this is just another example of why we need a single payer health care system in this country and that health insurance should not be tied to your employer. YMMV though.