Anyone else see the inconsistency?

[Oerets]

All the woman wanted was a baby. What the big deal in how it happens? Or was it that it had a cost associated with it. For an organization that is steadfast in it views on abortion I don't see their argument against in vitro fertilization.

http://www.courier-journal.com/viewart/20120918/NEWS02/309180086/2-groups-support-Indiana-teacher-fired-over-in-vitro?source=nletter-news

BTW parochial schools now receive state tax dollars for students who's families are eligible for vouchers. Removing the dollars from the local public schools.

Barney

[Boreas]

All the woman wanted was a baby. What the big deal in how it happens? Or was it that it had a cost associated with it. For an organization that is steadfast in it views on abortion I don't see their argument against in vitro fertilization.

But don't you remember what Jesus said about in vitro fertilization?

BTW parochial schools now receive state tax dollars for students who's families are eligible for vouchers. Removing the dollars from the local public schools.

Barney

Starve one beast and feed another.

John

[piece-itpete]

Are teachers eligible for the vouchers?

Pete

[Oerets]

Are teachers eligible for the vouchers?

Pete

If you mean can a teacher send their children to a private school using tax dollars. Yes I would think so they just need to meet the income requirement. Then be able to pay the difference between the tuition and voucher. But unsure if the teachers can transfer unless there is an opening.

But my local public school was inundated with ex-private school students wanting to get in because of the increase in tuition since the voucher program now allows for going to any school. No longer does one have to go to the closest school to you. Just need to apply and if the principle accept you then your in.

[Boreas]

If you mean can a teacher send their children to a private school using tax dollars. Yes I would think so they just need to meet the income requirement. Then be able to pay the difference between the tuition and voucher. But unsure if the teachers can transfer unless there is an opening.

But my local public school was inundated with ex-private school students wanting to get in because of the increase in tuition since the voucher program now allows for going to any school. No longer does one have to go to the closest school to you. Just need to apply and if the principle accept you then your in.

Are you saying that the private schools have raised their tuition rates because of the vouchers?

John

[ebacon]

All the woman wanted was a baby. What the big deal in how it happens? Or was it that it had a cost associated with it. For an organization that is steadfast in it views on abortion I don't see their argument against in vitro fertilization.

http://www.courier-journal.com/viewart/20120918/NEWS02/309180086/2-groups-support-Indiana-teacher-fired-over-in-vitro?source=nletter-news

BTW parochial schools now receive state tax dollars for students who's families are eligible for vouchers. Removing the dollars from the local public schools.

Barney

The situation at hand seems to be fallout from a recent Supreme Court case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf)

In a nutshell that case says that the government can not get involved in ministerial matters, not even if they would otherwise be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.


It's a simple application of seperation of church and state. The church can hire and fire whoever it wants for religious reasons.

[Oerets]

Are you saying that the private schools have raised their tuition rates because of the vouchers?

John

Yes they have, can you believe it!



Barney

[Boreas]

Yes they have, can you believe it!

Yes, I can.

Are these mostly parochial schools or schools with religious affiliations or are the big buck prep schools doing it too?

John

[piece-itpete]

It's par for the course. Look at college tuition.

Pete

[ebacon]

Everybody wants to be a rock star
live in hilltop houses
driving sixteen cars

[merrylander]

All the woman wanted was a baby. What the big deal in how it happens? Or was it that it had a cost associated with it. For an organization that is steadfast in it views on abortion I don't see their argument against in vitro fertilization.

http://www.courier-journal.com/viewart/20120918/NEWS02/309180086/2-groups-support-Indiana-teacher-fired-over-in-vitro?source=nletter-news

BTW parochial schools now receive state tax dollars for students who's families are eligible for vouchers. Removing the dollars from the local public schools.

Barney

Guess they figure it is spare the rod and spoil the child.

[d-ray657]

Guess they figure it is spare the rod and spoil the child.

Dirty old man. :D

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

Yes, I can.

Are these mostly parochial schools or schools with religious affiliations or are the big buck prep schools doing it too?

John

We have a fair amount of both, but the Catholic schools are the ones loosing more students to public do to the pricing, The Christian and Military inspired schools are holding steady I have heard from the teachers at my local school.

But next year there will be no limit to the number of students who can transfer schools. Up to now the state had a limit on transfers.


Barney

[ebacon]

All the woman wanted was a baby. What the big deal in how it happens? Or was it that it had a cost associated with it. For an organization that is steadfast in it views on abortion I don't see their argument against in vitro fertilization.

http://www.courier-journal.com/viewart/20120918/NEWS02/309180086/2-groups-support-Indiana-teacher-fired-over-in-vitro?source=nletter-news

BTW parochial schools now receive state tax dollars for students who's families are eligible for vouchers. Removing the dollars from the local public schools.

Barney

Oerets,

Here is more from the Vatican on in-vitro fertilization.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

[Oerets]

I think I understand the arguments about the storage of fertilized eggs and all the concepts of life beginning at conception. But a chance at a life is still better then no chance at all.

The inconsistency also goes deeper in my eyes in that if one really believes in a life after death. Then would not the life ended by abortion or in vitro be spared the pains of having to endure living in the here and now and go to the after life? I could see their argument more strongly if this was indeed the only life and no other. So me thinks they are not to sure in their faith.




Barney

[bobabode]

I think I understand the arguments about the storage of fertilized eggs and all the concepts of life beginning at conception. But a chance at a life is still better then no chance at all.

The inconsistency also goes deeper in my eyes in that if one really believes in a life after death. Then would not the life ended by abortion or in vitro be spared the pains of having to endure living in the here and now and go to the after life? I could see their argument more strongly if this was indeed the only life and no other. So me thinks they are not to sure in their faith.




Barney

Helluva a post, Barney.

[piece-itpete]

A common thing among Christians is, when they're having a hard time of things, "I wish I would hurry up and die!' and so then be in heaven :D

But, it is not up to us.

Pete

[Oerets]

A common thing among Christians is, when they're having a hard time of things, "I wish I would hurry up and die!' and so then be in heaven :D

But, it is not up to us.

Pete

If one really believed this 100% then why go to a Doctor when sick at all. Take medications or get glasses. One should think a Creator enabled us with the tools to have control over our life's.



Barney

[ebacon]

I think I understand the arguments about the storage of fertilized eggs and all the concepts of life beginning at conception. But a chance at a life is still better then no chance at all.

The inconsistency also goes deeper in my eyes in that if one really believes in a life after death. Then would not the life ended by abortion or in vitro be spared the pains of having to endure living in the here and now and go to the after life? I could see their argument more strongly if this was indeed the only life and no other. So me thinks they are not to sure in their faith.




Barney

I see where you are coming from but you have ignored the Vatican's position on several topics and replaced them with your own.

Here is a big one. You posit that ending a life by abortion or in vitro would be spared the pains of having to endure living. Such a position ignores another rule -- the rule against abortion. The overriding position of the Vatican is to let nature run its course and to not intervene. Abortion and in vitro selection are impermissible interventions, e.g. man is playing God.

I'm no expert at this stuff. It just seems to me that the paper consistently applies a rule against human intervention between procreation of married spouses.

[Oerets]

Ahhh intervention only matters when it comes to procreation and by the interpretation of celibate men. But to keep on alive when sick is a totally different matter!




Barney

[ebacon]

Ahhh intervention only matters when it comes to procreation and by the interpretation of celibate men. But to keep on alive when sick is a totally different matter!

Barney

Now you're just being a simple minded dick that's trying to save face. Intervention for killing and intervention for healing are two different things. You know it, I know it, so stop it.

[Oerets]

Now you're just being a simple minded dick that's trying to save face. Intervention for killing and intervention for healing are two different things. You know it, I know it, so stop it.

OK then you do see a difference in having mans intervention in medical procedures. One is OK to healing but not for the creation of another life. We just disagree on the killing portion. I can not say for sure when life first starts or ends. Neither can you also. We just have our own strong feelings and I would not try to change yours.

But if one believes in a afterlife then tell me how an abortion or in vitro really changes an innocents soul? My personal beliefs are more a reuse of the soul somewhere else. Like a rain drop when it leaves the cloud lives a life when falling then is added to the ocean once the fall is over. All to be repeated over and over again.



Barney

[piece-itpete]

If one really believed this 100% then why go to a Doctor when sick at all. Take medications or get glasses. One should think a Creator enabled us with the tools to have control over our life's.

Barney

We are to do God's work - 'I have made you fishers of men'

Pete

[ebacon]

OK then you do see a difference in having mans intervention in medical procedures. One is OK to healing but not for the creation of another life. We just disagree on the killing portion. I can not say for sure when life first starts or ends. Neither can you also. We just have our own strong feelings and I would not try to change yours.

But if one believes in a afterlife then tell me how an abortion or in vitro really changes an innocents soul? My personal beliefs are more a reuse of the soul somewhere else. Like a rain drop when it leaves the cloud lives a life when falling then is added to the ocean once the fall is over. All to be repeated over and over again.



Barney


One of my friends is a Catholic priest. While we have never discussed this issue I have learned an important lesson from him: There are no right answers to this kind of stuff.

People will do what people will do. The church cannot stop them. All the church does is provide guidance to help people make the best choices they can.

The same applies to the Instruction paper at hand. As with all documents, it is important to read this document as it was intended. The FOREWORD provides context. Here it is in pertinent part.

FOREWORD

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard.
Emphasis added.


The Foreward shows that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not publish the paper out of the blue. What actually happened was a number of people were confused on the topic. Those people asked the Congregation for Instruction. Nor does the paper purport to be perfectly aligned with all previous teachings. What it does do, however, is present the Congregations' best answers to the questions that believers asked.

As for your differences with the church, take it up with them. I doubt that you will make headway with a position that it is OK to kill people just to more quickly recycle souls through happy space. Everyone knows that is the Marines job.

[Boreas]

We are to do God's work - 'I have made you fishers of men'

Pete

That quote refers only to spreading the word.

By the way, Christian Scientists practice essentially the sort of "health care" Barney describes.

John

[piece-itpete]

They're kinda cultish group IMO, but to each their own. I mentioned the fishers to explain why Christians do go to the doctor etc.

Pete

[Boreas]

They're kinda cultish group IMO, but to each their own. I mentioned the fishers to explain why Christians do go to the doctor etc.

Pete

Fishermen go to the doctor?

Pete, the scriptural quote was spoken to Peter and the other fishermen in the boat. It was after a disastrous day of fishing where every cast of the nets came back empty until Jesus cast a net which came back bursting with fish.

He was telling them that they must go out and spread God's word among the gentiles, to catch up souls in the "net" of the Word. It has nothing to do with going to the doctor or even just plain caring for ourselves.

John

[piece-itpete]

It's my fault for not being clear - I was using it to show why we don't just curl up and die, and leave this broken world ;)

Pete

[Boreas]

It's my fault for not being clear - I was using it to show why we don't just curl up and die, and leave this broken world ;)

Pete

We do.

John

[piece-itpete]

'A wise man thinks about death.' :)

Pete

[merrylander]

The problem is that the church, or a great many of them, does not provide guidance, it is rare indeed to hear Jesus' teachings there.

Since I am not a doctor and since I cannot bear children, I cannot in good faith get between a woman and her doctor. Having grown up in Quebec there was a period where in a delivery if the choice was to save the mother or the child - they saved the child, and left its siblings motherless.

According to the teachings of some churches both of my marriages were invalid (but no one offered to pay for the divorce) since neither of my wives could bear children, and they claim that is the main purpose of marriage.

Regardless, I live this life as if it was the only one I will have, or at least I try to, I can't claim a 100% success rate, but my signature says it all. There were simply too many occurances in our meeting and courtship (over a 500 mile distance in the days before Internet) that something or someone had a hand in it somewhere. Who or what does not really matter because the simple joy of it all is that it happened.

[ebacon]

'A wise man thinks about death.' :)

Pete

From When Harry Met Sally :D

Harry Burns: Oh, really? When I buy a new book, I read the last page first. That way, in case I die before I finish, I know how it ends. That, my friend, is a dark side.

[Oerets]

One can argue every religion started out as a cult. Add to the fact the absurd notion yours is the only true teachings makes views of others open to ridicule and out right hatred.

The Church in question does get funding from the Government but is being treated differently the a non-religious business would be.

Now to the inconsistencies for me it boiled down to the old argument of when life begins. But if allowed this women would of had a good chance of producing a life. Also if this practice was to be main streamed could not the unused eggs be used by others?

I have a tortured complex view on Abortion and the Death Penalty. As most do and on one I will never have need to make the decision the other one would be very hard one to decide.

Back to the life question, I often think a person who eats meat but then never thinks about the life given up for that privilege. One who has lived on a farm and owned pets it is hard for me to think we are the only animals with a sense of consciousness. Yet killing a animal for survival is understood and accept generally. But a women is not allowed the same power over her body.



Barney

[ebacon]

One can argue every religion started out as a cult. Add to the fact the absurd notion yours is the only true teachings makes views of others open to ridicule and out right hatred.

The Church in question does get funding from the Government but is being treated differently the a non-religious business would be.

Now to the inconsistencies for me it boiled down to the old argument of when life begins. But if allowed this women would of had a good chance of producing a life. Also if this practice was to be main streamed could not the unused eggs be used by others?

I have a tortured complex view on Abortion and the Death Penalty. As most do and on one I will never have need to make the decision the other one would be very hard one to decide.

Back to the life question, I often think a person who eats meat but then never thinks about the life given up for that privilege. One who has lived on a farm and owned pets it is hard for me to think we are the only animals with a sense of consciousness. Yet killing a animal for survival is understood and accept generally. But a women is not allowed the same power over her body.



Barney

The woman is still free to undergo in-vitro. She just can't do it and work for that Bishop. That is unless the US Supreme Court changes the rules or the Bishop changes his mind.

[Boreas]

The woman is still free to undergo in-vitro. She just can't do it and work for that Bishop. That is unless the US Supreme Court changes the rules or the Bishop changes his mind.

You're okay with that?

"Do whatever you want! It's your body. Just don't bother coming to work tomorrow."

John

[ebacon]

You're okay with that?

"Do whatever you want! It's your body. Just don't bother coming to work tomorrow."

John

It's not work in the normal context. This teacher is a member of the church, no?

If she's not then she might have a case as the church would be hiring her as an employee, not a minister.

[ebacon]

Hmmm.

The teacher might have a case. Her attorney characterized her as a "lay-employee", which is legally different than a "minister".

The other issue here is the teacher worked under contract with the church. AFAIK the church did not fire her. It simply did not renew her contract.

People are allowed to contract with whomever they want, no?

[merrylander]

Msieu Chauvin would be proud.

[Boreas]

It's not work in the normal context.

Tell that to her. It sure as hell is a paycheck "in the normal context"!

This teacher is a member of the church, no?

Do we know this?

If she's not then she might have a case as the church would be hiring her as an employee, not a minister.

Whether she's a member of the church or not, it's as an employee that she served as a teacher (not a minister) and it's her services as an employee that were terminated, period. Whether she may or may not be a member of this particular parish or even the church as a whole is utterly irrelevant. The church need relevant grounds for dismissal. They have none.

John

[Oerets]

Not being a Lawyer but it seems to me and it should be noted that I believe Indiana is a "At Will" State.



" Indiana Employee Labor Laws
Employee Rights & Employer Responsibilities"



"Termination"

Indiana is an "at will" employment state. Termination

Indiana is an "at will" employment state. Employers may terminate employment for almost any reason or no reason at all. However, there are some reasons for termination that are legally prohibited. Employers may not terminate or otherwise discriminate against employees on the basis of race, gender, national origin, religion, disability status or age. Further, employers may not terminate employees for refusing to comply with illegal orders or reporting illegal workplace practices. After termination, an employer must pay the terminated employee all of his outstanding vacation pay. A terminated employee must receive all outstanding wages before the next regularly scheduled payday.


*Read more: Employee Rights in Indiana | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6636455_employee-rights-indiana.html#ixzz2735MP5Y8


This said if the reason for not renewal of the contract is the attempts to get pregnant then she has every right to pursue a case. This Diocese schools treceive funds now with the state allowing tax dollars under a voucher to be used to pay for private schools. Negating the separation of church and state it would seem.




Barney

[Oerets]

The woman is still free to undergo in-vitro. She just can't do it and work for that Bishop. That is unless the US Supreme Court changes the rules or the Bishop changes his mind.

Free to do it? So no problem with the the life at conception issue? Just the company she works for has special privileges allowing them to opt out.




Barney

[ebacon]

Free to do it? So no problem with the the life at conception issue? Just the company she works for has special privileges allowing them to opt out.




Barney


Are you are asking my opinion? My opinion is unrelated to the facts and the law but here it is.

Personally I feel for the teacher. She's been dealt a crappy hand without question. Not only did God deny her the ability to conceive naturally, but her employer, who is supposed to be a teacher of compassion, also turned his back on her.

That's raw.

But the law is the law. For it to work it must be applied with dispassionate consistency. In this case the teacher has a few legal hurdles to overcome. None of them are that big IMO, it's just a shame that she has to jump them at all.

First is the issue of contract. If she is truly a contractor then typical employment law is out. The way the courts get around such a cold analysis is re-categorize the contractor as an employee. The court can do that by looking at, among other things, who dictated how the teacher got her work done. If she worked to the beat of her own drum then the court will likely leave her stuck as a contractor. On the other if the court finds that the church dictated her day to day activities then the court will likely re-categorize her as an employee.

Second is the issue of case law. The Supreme Court recently ruled in Hosanna-Tabor that federal disability protections do not apply to a church-minister relationship. If the court finds that the teacher was a minister then she is unfortunately SOL. On the other hand if the court finds that she was merely an employee of the church then the law works in her favor.

Bottom line is that her best shot happens if the court finds that she was employee of the church. Her chances at winning peter out quickly if the court finds that she was a minister or contractor.

Them's the rules.

Why are your underwear in a wad over this anyhow? It doesn't affect you and you leftie guys are generally in favor of church/state separation. Do you you see the church's dispassionate application of doctrine as cold? Would your opinion differ if the church did not receive gov't funds? (I don't know if they do but someone said they did and I'm not going to fact check).

[Boreas]

It doesn't affect you and you leftie guys are generally in favor of church/state separation. Do you you see the church's dispassionate application of doctrine as cold? Would your opinion differ if the church did not receive gov't funds? (I don't know if they do but someone said they did and I'm not going to fact check).

Church/State Separation isn't a license for the Church to violate laws of the State. I would feel the exact same way regardless of whether the school received State funds. As for cold, damn right. Cold, arbitrarily punitive and potentially illegal.

John

[Oerets]

Are you are asking my opinion?

Why are your underwear in a wad over this anyhow? It doesn't affect you and you leftie guys are generally in favor of church/state separation. Do you you see the church's dispassionate application of doctrine as cold? Would your opinion differ if the church did not receive gov't funds? (I don't know if they do but someone said they did and I'm not going to fact check).



I guess my interest in this is as a lapsed Chocaholic and all, seeing the church of my youth once a bastion of liberal ideals has now succumbed to ultra conservative ideals. Granted the church was never for abortion but we will agree they have changed.

I do have a problem with the private schools receiving funds meant to go to public schools. The whole voucher program in general, but that has nothing to do it this. I just thought it was inconsistent for the church to be against abortion and in-vitro at the same time. But was reminded that the church believes fertilized eggs are to be treated as alive.


If a church receives public funds then I believe they should be treated like any other business would be.

Barney

[ebacon]

Church/State Separation isn't a license for the Church to violate laws of the State. . .

And there's the rub.

You are ignoring the U.S. Constitution, in particular:

The Supremacy Clause at Art. VI, para II;
The scope of the Supreme Court at Art. III, Sec. 2, para I; and
The 1st amendment.

The Supremacy Clause comes in with the Americans with Disability Act.
The Supreme Court comes in with its ruling under Hosanna-Tabor.
The 1st amendment comes in because the facts involve a church.

It sounds like what you want is for the nation to run willy-nilly according to your feelings. That's anarchy and it doesn't work.

[ebacon]

I guess my interest in this is as a lapsed Chocaholic and all, seeing the church of my youth once a bastion of liberal ideals has now succumbed to ultra conservative ideals. Granted the church was never for abortion but we will agree they have changed.

I do have a problem with the private schools receiving funds meant to go to public schools. The whole voucher program in general, but that has nothing to do it this. I just thought it was inconsistent for the church to be against abortion and in-vitro at the same time. But was reminded that the church believes fertilized eggs are to be treated as alive.


If a church receives public funds then I believe they should be treated like any other business would be.

Barney

And I can agree with those frustrations. The American brands of Christianity are generally drifting towards dickyness.

IMO the Bishop of this church could have avoided the whole mess by simply being nice and talking to the teacher over lunch and explaining the church's position as laid out in the Vatican Informational. Who knows, maybe the teacher might even agree with it and decide that the emotion anguish of artificial conception isn't worth the heartache.

[Boreas]

The Supremacy Clause comes in with the Americans with Disability Act.

I don't know how the ADA applies here. We're not talking about a disabled person or accommodation in public places.

The Supreme Court comes in with its ruling under Hosanna-Tabor.

Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC established the ministerial exception. Unless the courts find that a teacher in a parochial school, regardless of the subjects she might teach, is a minister, that case is irrelevant.

The 1st amendment comes in because the facts involve a church.

Again, Churches, except where specifically exempted, must obey the law of the land. This must be especially so in cases where they punish others for personal decisions and actions that are in keeping with that law.

It sounds like what you want is for the nation to run willy-nilly according to your feelings. That's anarchy and it doesn't work.

No, that's autocracy and it works for me? ;)

John

[Oerets]

I don't know how the ADA applies here. We're not talking about a disabled person or accommodation in public places.


John

I think being infertile is considered a disability by law.




Barney

[ebacon]

I don't know how the ADA applies here. We're not talking about a disabled person or accommodation in public places.

The ADA applies because the complainant asserted it. See the OP.

And please don't write to me with that ridiculous tit-for-tat style that amateurs use all over teh internet. It's disrespectful but worse than that it enforces incoherent thinking.

[Boreas]

I think being infertile is considered a disability by law.




Barney

Weird if true. I wonder whether sterility in males is too. Seems only fair.

Also, if true, it's just another basis for suing the church for discrimination so I wonder whether that's what EB meant. Doesn't seem likely.

John

[Boreas]

The ADA applies because the complainant asserted it. See the OP.

And please don't write to me with that ridiculous tit-for-tat style that amateurs use all over teh internet. It's disrespectful but worse than that it enforces incoherent thinking.

Okay, thanks for redirecting my attention to the OP. My layman's brain tells me that the Supremacy Clause would operate more strongly with regard to the ADA and the Civil Rights Act than with regard to the First Amendment. "Free exercise" of religion doesn't afford the right to discriminate against others on the basis of that religion or religious dogma. The EEOC seems to feel the same.

As to the organization of my earlier reply, for it to have been disrespectful would require that I intended as much when I wrote it. I did not. That you dislike it or can't follow it is another matter and I'll try to bear that in mind for the future.

John