......Tribe: Bald eagle permit a victory for tradition

[EmilyK]

Article 1 of the Constitution. There's a right to free exercise of religion. Eagles have no right to life. Other people have no right to enjoy eagles. It's not even a competition here.

 

The understanding of "free exercise" has evolved over the years. For one thing, note that it refers to "Congress shall make no law..." Can states? Can others impede free exercise? Does there have to be state action for it to be covered by the first amendment? What is the definition of state action?

 

I agree that currently eagles wouldn't trump free exercise, but there are limits (and have been in the past) over what constitutes a protected free exercise.

 

I haven't had time to look up the decision, but I remember Justice Brennan wrote a dissent in a Supreme Court case, maybe in the 1980s, talking about native american free exercise. As I remember (open to correction), the majority found that the drug laws trumped free exercise. You could argue that it was a victimless crime, but the conservative court found otherwise.

[brandigirl]

@tex-mex I see hunting a crime when it is not needed for survival but after listening to a few voices here I am stuck admitting that some people need their spirituality. I am not saying that because you do not agree with its a crime there is a big difference between agreeing and doing.

 

@mamajag the only reason I highlighted die was to emphasize physical death.

[pqr]

@tex-mex I see hunting a crime when it is not needed for survival but after listening to a few voices here I am stuck admitting that some people need their spirituality. I am not saying that because you do not agree with its a crime there is a big difference between agreeing and doing.

.

 

 

 

Your opinions and mine obviously differ, but to make certain I understand you would view me, and my son, as being criminals because we shoot deer?

 

Are we on the level of a shoplifter or do you see us as being worse? If we shoot bear, which I do intend, are we still worse?

 

Again we are all free to hold our own views and I take absolutely no umbrage at your views though it will not stop us going hunting I am simply looking for clarification.

Edited March 18, 2012 by pqr

[MSNative]

Wyoming is working on opening up wolf hunting as well, in a much wider group then one tribe and two birds.

 

I see that you are from WY so I am confused by your post. Are you against wolf hunting there? My dh's family is from WY. Where they are the wolves are a menace. They have destroyed horses, livestock, elk, deer, etc. The wolves have come up to the paddock several times and attacked their horses. Fences do not keep them out.

[Jane in NC]

We have gotten to where we seldom let ours out and only do so when we can have people/activity going on outside to discourage hawks. But free-ranging eggs taste much better than cooped up eggs to be honest.

 

What about the mobile coops that protect chickens but allow them to be shifted throughout your property? Do these eggs taste more like free range?

[ktgrok]

@tex-mex I see hunting a crime when it is not needed for survival but after listening to a few voices here I am stuck admitting that some people need their spirituality. I am not saying that because you do not agree with its a crime there is a big difference between agreeing and doing.

 

@mamajag the only reason I highlighted die was to emphasize physical death.

 

Ok...so is hunting and eating a deer worse or better than buying a burger at McDonalds? Or having spagetti and meatballs at home, with meat from the super market? Do you have the same opinion of these people, doing these actions, that you do of people hunting?

[Whereneverever]

I see that you are from WY so I am confused by your post. Are you against wolf hunting there? My dh's family is from WY. Where they are the wolves are a menace. They have destroyed horses, livestock, elk, deer, etc. The wolves have come up to the paddock several times and attacked their horses. Fences do not keep them out.

 

I'm not. I've posted a few times past that one. ;)

[brandigirl]

I do not mind you killing it if you EAT it. As for the burgers from McDonald lets just say I do not get near them with a ten foot pole after reading Fast food nation. :ack2: I have no issue with hunting what ever meat floats your boat but if you are not going to eat it then thats were I think the problem starts.

[Whereneverever]

I do not mind you killing it if you EAT it. As for the burgers from McDonald lets just say I do not get near them with a ten foot pole after reading Fast food nation. :ack2:

 

Most predators make terrible eating. We had a bear to eat once... Never again. :ack2:

[Whereneverever]

I do not mind you killing it if you EAT it. As for the burgers from McDonald lets just say I do not get near them with a ten foot pole after reading Fast food nation. :ack2: I have no issue with hunting what ever meat floats your boat but if you are not going to eat it then thats were I think the problem starts.

 

So, is it ok to shoot the bears that eat people here, even if no one eats the bear? What about mountain lions or wolves that attack livestock?

[ktgrok]

I do not mind you killing it if you EAT it. As for the burgers from McDonald lets just say I do not get near them with a ten foot pole after reading Fast food nation. :ack2: I have no issue with hunting what ever meat floats your boat but if you are not going to eat it then thats were I think the problem starts.

 

But if you don't NEED that animal to survive, than how is it different? Even IF one says that you do need some meat to survive, how much is that? If you eat meat every meal is that ok? Or only twice a week? How much is "for survival" and how much is just for the pleasure and taste? And why is pleasure an ok use for the animal, but not a religious ceremony?

[brandigirl]

All depends on age activity and gender. For people like me I have issues with pretty much all foods so no pork, beef is pretty rough also, and I find chicken kind of funny is almost taste like Iron to me. So that leaves me with fish which I have occasionally you need meats when the surrounding plants can't sustain you ie winter. Now obviously we do not need meats but some of us like me who were gifted with some of the nastiest allergies are stuck eating kinda funny foods.

 

ps Just so you know you have won this argument you are insanely persistent and have a fact to back all opinions. :tongue_smilie:

[LostSurprise]

Source, please? My point is not argumentative. I am simply curious how population counts of migratory birds are projected from several hundred years ago.

 

The Mathematically Curious Jane

 

Scott Craven, chair of University of Wisconsin Wildlife Ecology Dept., extension wildlife expert, formerly of the WI DNR, as reported on Wisconsin Public Radio on either the January 4th or February 1st the year show.

 

I'm assuming they're going by settler activity in the early 19th century, not French trappers and explorers. While he didn't back himself up I assume he's taking information from something like:

 

Kumlien L. and N. Hollister. 1903. The birds of Wisconsin. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Hatural History Society 3 1-143; reprinted with A.W. Schorger’s revisions, Wisconsin Society for Ornithology. 1951. Which I found mentioned here: http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/plan/species/baea.htm

 

I assume they take that information from settler and Native American accounts (Blackfoot/Fox/Ojibwa/etc), especially regarding eagle territories/nesting. That's how they gauge current population. If they weren't finding nests in southern Wisconsin in 1830 but they are now, that does say something about eagle numbers.

 

Hard numbers for the last 30 years: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/harvest/reports/eagleospreysurv.pdf

[Jane in NC]

Scott Craven, chair of University of Wisconsin Wildlife Ecology Dept., extension wildlife expert, formerly of the WI DNR, as reported on Wisconsin Public Radio on either the January 4th or February 1st the year show.

 

I'm assuming they're going by settler activity in the early 19th century, not French trappers and explorers. While he didn't back himself up I assume he's taking information from something like:

 

Kumlien L. and N. Hollister. 1903. The birds of Wisconsin. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Hatural History Society 3 1-143; reprinted with A.W. Schorger’s revisions, Wisconsin Society for Ornithology. 1951. Which I found mentioned here: http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/plan/species/baea.htm

 

I assume they take that information from settler and Native American accounts (Blackfoot/Fox/Ojibwa/etc), especially regarding eagle territories/nesting. That's how they gauge current population. If they weren't finding nests in southern Wisconsin in 1830 but they are now, that does say something about eagle numbers.

 

Hard numbers for the last 30 years: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/harvest/reports/eagleospreysurv.pdf

 

Thank you for the links.

 

It is not surprising that eagle populations are springing back in recent years since DDT has been banned. And I understanding how the nineteenth century lumber industry changed the landscape and ecosystems of Wisconsin. But I am not convinced that less than formal surveys of the early 19th century are necessarily accurate. Tomorrow I should have time to listen to the radio program so perhaps I'll be illuminated?

 

You were kind to take the time to write this out for me.

 

Jane

[EmilyK]

while reading the news tonight.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/03/its_a_comeback_story_bald_eagl.html

 

Story is about the recent Oregon de-listing as a state endangered species. If I'm reading the article correctly, though the bald eagle has made a great comeback, the national population is well below what it was in the 1780s.

 

....

 

By 2006, researchers counted 9,789 breeding pairs in the lower 48.

...

 

 

Bald eagles have existed in the Northwest for up to 14,000 years, and there may have been as many as 100,000 eagles in the lower 48 states in the 1780s, according to ODFW.

[tex-mex]

I do not mind you killing it if you EAT it. As for the burgers from McDonald lets just say I do not get near them with a ten foot pole after reading Fast food nation. :ack2: I have no issue with hunting what ever meat floats your boat but if you are not going to eat it then thats were I think the problem starts.

Traditionally, natives are known to use all parts of an animal. Nothing went to waste. I'm guessing you did not know this fact? The eagle is not being wasted. And they only hunt when it is needed -- much like the Yupiks hunting whales to feed the entire village once a year up in St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. (FYI: My husband worked with this village in person and saw first witness of the extreme poverty and how a hunt really helps the entire village to survive.)

 

I think it is a slippery slope with your line of reasoning. Why stop at hunting? What about the leather sofa in your RV? The shoes you wear? Those who raise animals for food production? McDonald's hamburgers may be gross, but there is a huge industry of people who earn a living behind it from the rancher to the franchisee to the guy who works there. Sorry, folks who work at McDonald's -- but killing cows is wrong and this business is laying off workers. Those people are unemployed. Don't these people have RIGHTS to earn a decent living or do we all have to comply with your rules about hunting or killing animals?

 

If one cannot kill something without eating it, then they should allow the mice population to intrude their home and bring in filth and disease? If my child is allergic to wasps -- I cannot kill the wasp nest in the underside of my roof near his play area? My child's life is not as important as an insect?

 

Do you see where I am going with this train of thought? ;) I don't mean to change your point of view by any means. If you feel that strongly, super-duper. Live life to the fullest. But give some grace and understanding for those who think and live differently to your views.

Edited March 19, 2012 by tex-mex

[Bang!Zoom!]

That link on St. Lawrence was awesome to view. Thanks for that.

 

My family line, way back, used to always keep a dog with them when they'd cross the Great Lakes. If a storm came up, they'd throw it in the water and let it drown. They took the rough water as a sign the Gods were hungry.

 

Just a little trivia there for ya, should you see quaint pictures of Natives with dogs in their canoes..lol..

 

I remember prayers before hunts, while the hunt was going on, when the hunt was finished, after it was cleaned and stored, upon eating it, and then upon burying the remains/scraps in the gardens....

[tex-mex]

That link on St. Lawrence was awesome to view. Thanks for that.

 

My family line, way back, used to always keep a dog with them when they'd cross the Great Lakes. If a storm came up, they'd throw it in the water and let it drown. They took the rough water as a sign the Gods were hungry.

 

Just a little trivia there for ya, should you see quaint pictures of Natives with dogs in their canoes..lol..

 

I remember prayers before hunts, while the hunt was going on, when the hunt was finished, after it was cleaned and stored, upon eating it, and then upon burying the remains/scraps in the gardens....

Yes, you and I understand each other! Thank you for sharing.

 

It was an amazing experience for my husband -- who is not native.

 

He works with many Native American tribes all over North America. I am part Apache via my mother's side -- son and I dress up in full regalia for Pow-Wows too. But he loved the village of Gambell and its people. The poverty there was eye opening. Everyone was worried the annual hunt would be cancelled due to a bad storm. Soon after he left, they were able to hunt a whale and everyone in the village had meat for the Winter.

Edited March 19, 2012 by tex-mex

[Bang!Zoom!]

Did the Apache celebrate spring with the Sun Dance?

 

I used to go to Pow Wow too...my dd has never been to one, it's something we talk about quite often actually. You are so blessed to participate, wow.

 

I get teary just thinking of it. That is awesome.

 

There are some ceremonial video footage of the Grand Entry from the tribe, dd has seen those, and I explain to her what the dances are about. I found this particular one (not related) and it knocked my socks off, if you like the fast dancing, watch this guy, he's surreal...olay olay olay...glimpse of God stuff here..

 

 

 

Look for the man named RG Harris, he starts about minute 4:20 = amazing

Edited March 19, 2012 by one*mom

[LucyStoner]

Carnivorous and omnivorous animals kill each other for food. Why are humans different? While some people choose to not eat meat and that is fine, it is clear that we have traditionally consumed meat.

 

With regards to religious purposes and NA treaty rights, it is pretty clear that they have the legal right.

 

I doubt an article about killing an overpopulation of possums would get a teary smilie from many (any?)one. We have arbitrary lines in which animals merit our feelings.

Edited March 19, 2012 by kijipt

[MamaSheep]

...

 

This is not a good thing to say on these boards, I know, but I don't "get" (on a gut level) many of the religious exemption things anymore. I have total tolerance for people doing things (for religious reasons, or otherwise) that don't affect me. And I'm a lawyer, so yes, I understand our complicated constitutional law on the issue. But despite my own religious feelings and beliefs, I just don't think that religion should be a reason for changing rules we've otherwise come up with (animal treatment, how we treat our employees, how we can appear in certain situations, etc). I'm really not trying to divert the discussion onto this, but wanted to respond to the thought that this is important for religious respect, and explain that not everyone feels that way.

 

It's true that not everyone feels that way. But not everyone feels as you do either. In fact, I would guess that we'd have a great deal of trouble coming up with much of anything in the way of an idea that everyone felt the same about. That's one of the reasons we NEED laws that protect the freedom to act according to our own consciences, which absolutely includes religious exemptions to certain regulations.

 

You wouldn't want to be forced to hunt, just because other people didn't see what your problem with it was, even if those other people "felt" that every reasonable human being "should" be on board with it. Other people don't want to be forced to engage in, or financially support, an act they view as the equivalent to murder for hire just because their employee doesn't "get" their objection and "wants" it done. Still others don't want to be forced to appear in public in a state of undress which violates their sense of decency. Many people believe that forcing a person to engage in or support an activity which violates their consciences on such a deep level because of a "rule" invented by someone of a different cultural background in order to promote their own comfort and convenience, is a form of oppression that is incompatible with a "tolerant" society. "Tolerance" does not apply to things that don't affect you. If it doesn't come into contact with you there is nothing for you to "tolerate". "Tolerance" is a willingness to be inconvenienced on another person's behalf because of something that DOES affect you, and to be pleasant about it. It sure is nice when that tolerance is returned, in the form of the other guy being willing to be pleasant about inconvenience caused to him because of something you do that affects them. It's a key ingredient in a pluralistic society.

Edited March 19, 2012 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

Carnivorous and omnivorous animals kill each other for food. Why are humans different? While some people choose to not eat meat and that is fine, it is clear that we have traditionally consumed meat.

 

With regards to religious purposes and NA treaty rights, it is pretty clear that they have the legal right.

 

I doubt an article about killing and overpopulation of possums would get a teary smilie from many (any?)one. We have arbitrary lines in which animals merit our feelings.

 

Yup, I'm with you there.

 

Having grown up in Yellowstone Park with LOTS of wild animals around, I've always thought a lot of people in our society have a tendency to romanticize them rather a lot. Especially people who've never met them, or who've seen them only in passing.

 

Also, I'm not really convinced that being dead is such a horrible thing. (Getting that way is not always particularly pleasant, but actually being dead--well I suppose my opinions on the subject are informed by my beliefs regarding the immortality of the soul.)

 

Random thoughts, late at night when I should really be in bed...

[Haiku]

Don't these people have RIGHTS to earn a decent living

 

Only if you are a pinko leftie liberal. ;)

 

Tara

[ktgrok]

ps Just so you know you have won this argument you are insanely persistent and have a fact to back all opinions. :tongue_smilie:

 

lol...my husband calls that "stubborn as a mule." And honestly, I really am interested in exploring where the questions go more than forcing you to change your mind. Socratic discussion :)

[EKS]

I don't have a problem with it. Bald eagles are no longer endangered (and it is very apparent where I live--we see them every day).

[MamaSheep]

Only if you are a pinko leftie liberal. ;)

 

Tara

 

Or live in a right-wing "right to work" State. ;)

[brandigirl]

Oh I learned about Socratic discussion in my AP Lang class it was so fun to have discussions with me students. But you guys are a much tougher crowd.:lol: One credit for the year is going to be debate courtesy of WTM.

[ktgrok]

Oh I learned about Socratic discussion in my AP Lang class it was so fun to have discussions with me students. But you guys are a much tougher crowd.:lol: One credit for the year is going to be debate courtesy of WTM.

 

Sounds fair! Seriously, I am fine if people thing killing animals is wrong. I just wanted to point out that if you get upset about an article about killing eagles you probably also should be upset about the Chik Fil A billboard on the highway.

[Haiku]

Or live in a right-wing "right to work" State. ;)

 

My understanding of "right-to-work" (which is currently being debated in my state) is that it has to do with not having mandatory membership in a union, not that you have a "right" to work.

 

Tara

[Lady Florida.]

My understanding of "right-to-work" (which is currently being debated in my state) is that it has to do with not having mandatory membership in a union, not that you have a "right" to work.

 

Tara

 

Yep. Florida is a right-to-work state, and that's exactly what it means.

[beaners]

Sounds fair! Seriously, I am fine if people thing killing animals is wrong. I just wanted to point out that if you get upset about an article about killing eagles you probably also should be upset about the Chik Fil A billboard on the highway.

 

Just to add a little more food for thought, an astonishing amount of wildlife is killed in the process of growing the plant life we eat. You have animals killed directly in the combining process. You have animals killed indirectly when the fertilizer runoff creates algae blooms that choke out life in waterways. Those are only a few examples. As another poster (Tara?) said, you do the best you can. I'm not pointing these out because I expect anyone to completely eliminate every effect they have on the world. It's just good to realize that you really are making choices that kill animals to some degree.

 

I'm not bringing it up to be a jerk or rub the OP's nose in the dirt. I'm one of the younger mothers around here, so I'm not too much older than the OP. I held very similar beliefs those few years ago. Unlike the OP, I did not have the maturity to consider any other points of view. :lol:

[brandigirl]

Thanks for all the help guys. I am actually starting to agree with you guys as fpr the chicken posters. I love the cow that says "eat more chikin". I am just being very random today aren't I:001_huh:

[MamaSheep]

My understanding of "right-to-work" (which is currently being debated in my state) is that it has to do with not having mandatory membership in a union, not that you have a "right" to work.

 

Tara

 

Yes, it's about keeping unions from blocking non-union workers from having employment. I was kind of joking around, which is why I added the winky face. But I do know that this sort of humor doesn't translate well online; my fingers kept going after my brain shut down last night. Sorry. :)

 

I do think it's a vast and unfair oversimplification to say that only pinko leftie liberals think people have a right to earn a living, but that's a whole other conversation.

[Haiku]

I do think it's a vast and unfair oversimplification to say that only pinko leftie liberals think people have a right to earn a living, but that's a whole other conversation.

 

I was being facetious because of the many discussions around here of what constitute rights and the political lines those threads tend to split on. :D

 

Tara

[EmilyK]

It's true that not everyone feels that way. But not everyone feels as you do either. In fact, I would guess that we'd have a great deal of trouble coming up with much of anything in the way of an idea that everyone felt the same about. That's one of the reasons we NEED laws that protect the freedom to act according to our own consciences, which absolutely includes religious exemptions to certain regulations.

 

You wouldn't want to be forced to hunt, just because other people didn't see what your problem with it was, even if those other people "felt" that every reasonable human being "should" be on board with it. Other people don't want to be forced to engage in, or financially support, an act they view as the equivalent to murder for hire just because their employee doesn't "get" their objection and "wants" it done. Still others don't want to be forced to appear in public in a state of undress which violates their sense of decency. Many people believe that forcing a person to engage in or support an activity which violates their consciences on such a deep level because of a "rule" invented by someone of a different cultural background in order to promote their own comfort and convenience, is a form of oppression that is incompatible with a "tolerant" society. "Tolerance" does not apply to things that don't affect you. If it doesn't come into contact with you there is nothing for you to "tolerate". "Tolerance" is a willingness to be inconvenienced on another person's behalf because of something that DOES affect you, and to be pleasant about it. It sure is nice when that tolerance is returned, in the form of the other guy being willing to be pleasant about inconvenience caused to him because of something you do that affects them. It's a key ingredient in a pluralistic society.

 

I hear you, but I think America of late seems to want (especially the more conservative voices I hear on the boards and in real life) a wider swath of protected/exempted behavoir on the basis of "free exercise". I hear mostly those voices on these boards, and very few like mine.

 

I'm all about people believing whatever they want. And in real life, I'm seen as extremely tolerant in your meaning of the world -- I have friends who run the spectrum and I celebrate their differences. Last week I went to a Chabad dinner and made a donation, and worked with gay couple clients/friends to plan their financial and legal affairs. But I guess I'm just sharing a couple of things: (1) I see a lot of wonderful, progressive countries that don't have as many exemptions from behavior/forbidden behavior as we do (I'm not talking about belief; I'm talking about behavior) and (2) if what we are talking about is the contraception coverage debate, yes, I see that as my employer forcing me to wear a headcovering because that is what he/she believes women should do.

 

I guess I don't see your argument about my beliefs about "free exercise" is like me being forced to hunt. That's an affirmative activity; I am saying in my perfect world, the free exercise clause would not be construed to give so many exemptions from otherwise reasonable restrictions because some one has a religious reason.

 

I haven't wanted to bother researching them, but there are recentish Supreme Court cases that haven't found it a "free exercise" when drug law violations are involved. To me, I don't really understand the difference between peyote and hunting in this context, but apparently the Supreme Court does. The legal issues about the free exercise clause are very fluid and may be in a very different place in 10 or 20 years. No idea if it will move your direction or mine, but it isn't immutable. So some of my postings have just been to point out the subtleties to folks who feel that the First Amendment has an obvious and unchanging meaning.

[MamaSheep]

I hear you, but I think America of late seems to want (especially the more conservative voices I hear on the boards and in real life) a wider swath of protected/exempted behavoir on the basis of "free exercise". I hear mostly those voices on these boards, and very few like mine.

 

I hear you too. And I agree that "free exercise" is a right that must not be abused. From my perspective, though, America of late seems to want (especially the more liberal voices) a wider swath of control in areas that infringe on religious belief and practice. When the conservative voices say they want protections and exemptions on the basis of "free exercise", from their perspective they generally mean something along the lines of "fine, if that's what you guys feel, in your deepest conscience, is the 'right' way to live your lives, we're willing to be 'tolerant' and live alongside that lifestyle, even though we don't agree with you, because we don't want to force our views on you. Please also respect our right to follow our own consciences on these matters and to live as we see fit rather than imposing your views on us and forcing us to do things we believe are immoral (by allowing us a religious exemption)." And generally the response we get seems to be something along the lines of, "No, you have to live by our rules because your beliefs are stupid." In fact, it is beginning to seem as if any religious opinion or reason is just dismissed out of hand merely because religion is involved.

 

There has to be some middle ground where people with differing views can agree to live and let live and refrain from forcing others to do things they consider morally wrong.

 

I'm all about people believing whatever they want. And in real life, I'm seen as extremely tolerant in your meaning of the world -- I have friends who run the spectrum and I celebrate their differences. Last week I went to a Chabad dinner and made a donation, and worked with gay couple clients/friends to plan their financial and legal affairs. But I guess I'm just sharing a couple of things: (1) I see a lot of wonderful, progressive countries that don't have as many exemptions from behavior/forbidden behavior as we do (I'm not talking about belief; I'm talking about behavior)...

 

But you don't see that those progressive countries are not "wonderful" for everyone. To you they seem "wonderful" because they embody many of the values that YOU embrace. You don't see, though, how things valued just as highly by other people are denigrated, or even criminalized. You don't see that the "progressive" agenda can be "oppressive" to some groups and cultures.

 

...and (2) if what we are talking about is the contraception coverage debate, yes, I see that as my employer forcing me to wear a headcovering because that is what he/she believes women should do.

 

I was thinking of both the contraception coverage debate and recent discussion about photo ID requirements in relation to women who cover for religious purposes (which, it seems to me, could be resolved in a very "tolerant" manner by allowing such women to present both their face and their photo ID to a female security officer (or preferably two to minimize fraud) in a location screened from public view, but again, that's a whole other discussion).

 

Regarding contraception coverage, I really don't see how it could possibly equate to an employer forcing you to wear a head covering. Nobody is asking to be able to force female employees not to USE contraception. What is being asked is only that employers who have a moral objection to contraceptives (because they believe they are morally equivalent to ending a human life) should not be forced to use their resources to directly PAY for their women employees to do something they genuinely feel is immoral. They're not asking to be able to stop female employees from buying their own contraception, or contraceptive health coverage. They're just saying you do your own thing, and allow us to do our own thing without forcing us to participate in something we find unconscionable just because it would be more convenient for you.

 

I don't happen to have an objection to the responsible use of contraception, personally (nor do I wear a headcovering). I do understand, though, that for some people it really, truly is the moral equivalent of taking a person's life. And I think it's unbelievably cruel to make them participate in it. I don't think it's cruel to ask women to make their own personal arrangements separate from their employer. I think a "tolerant" solution would allow both parties to act in accordance with their own beliefs without impacting the other--woman uses whatever contraceptives she sees fit, and employer doesn't need to even know about it, let alone pay for it.

 

I guess I don't see your argument about my beliefs about "free exercise" is like me being forced to hunt. That's an affirmative activity; I am saying in my perfect world, the free exercise clause would not be construed to give so many exemptions from otherwise reasonable restrictions because some one has a religious reason.

 

Being forced to pay for an employee's contraceptives and/or abortion procedures is also an affirmative activity. Being forced to remove one's headcovering in public view of men who are not relatives is also an affirmative activity. Forcing someone to be in the military when they are a pacifist is another example. Frequently, requiring someone to comply with a restriction is also forcing them to engage in an affirmative activity. I think it's important to look at both sides of the coin before deciding what is "reasonable", and to keep in mind that sometimes what is "reasonable" for one person is horrific for another. It seems "reasonable" to many people, for example, for government meetings to begin with everyone present reciting the pledge of allegiance as a statement of loyalty to the country. However, the pledge contains some language that is morally objectionable to some citizens, even though they are still loyal citizens. I think it is "reasonable" to allow a "free exercise" exemption both to those who believe swearing fealty to anything other than God constitutes idolatry (even though they are loyal, law-abiding citizens), and to those who object to using the phrase "under God" because they don't believe there is any such being as God (even though they are loyal, law-abiding citizens). I don't have to agree with either of those view points in order to empathize with those who do, and to see that tolerant co-existence sometimes necessitates exemptions to OTHERWISE reasonable restrictions and/or requirements, because it is NOT otherwise.

 

I haven't wanted to bother researching them, but there are recentish Supreme Court cases that haven't found it a "free exercise" when drug law violations are involved. To me, I don't really understand the difference between peyote and hunting in this context, but apparently the Supreme Court does. The legal issues about the free exercise clause are very fluid and may be in a very different place in 10 or 20 years. No idea if it will move your direction or mine, but it isn't immutable. So some of my postings have just been to point out the subtleties to folks who feel that the First Amendment has an obvious and unchanging meaning.

 

I agree that the law is somewhat fluid. And while I agree that in the U.S. the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is "legal", I don't believe that this means it is the ultimate arbiter of what is fundamentally "reasonable", or what is "right". I think the court has, on occasion, made some bad rulings. Just because something is "legal", that doesn't necessarily make it "right".

[MamaSheep]

I was being facetious because of the many discussions around here of what constitute rights and the political lines those threads tend to split on. :D

 

Tara

 

Fair 'nuff.:D

[Bang!Zoom!]

The Washington Post has an amazing new article out on this. Well worth the email sign up if you don't already have an account...

 

If this doesn't add depth, I don't know what would...excellent article, and the commentary afterwards is quite engaging also. Recommend.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/eagle-odyssey-a-revered-birds-journey-from-metro-tracks-to-us-repository/2012/03/15/gIQAZ80lIS_story.html

[Truscifi]

I don't happen to have an objection to the responsible use of contraception, personally (nor do I wear a headcovering). I do understand, though, that for some people it really, truly is the moral equivalent of taking a person's life. And I think it's unbelievably cruel to make them participate in it. I don't think it's cruel to ask women to make their own personal arrangements separate from their employer. I think a "tolerant" solution would allow both parties to act in accordance with their own beliefs without impacting the other--woman uses whatever contraceptives she sees fit, and employer doesn't need to even know about it, let alone pay for it.

 

Such a solution has been offered (that insurance companies bear the cost of contraceptives - which they agreed to because it lowers their overall costs) and rejected by many vocal conservatives.

 

I agree with you, BTW.

[MamaSheep]

Such a solution has been offered (that insurance companies bear the cost of contraceptives - which they agreed to because it lowers their overall costs) and rejected by many vocal conservatives.

 

I agree with you, BTW.

 

Well, I don't want to get overly political here, and I've probably sidetracked this thread long enough (sorry, all) so I'll just say for what it's worth, I happen to think there are many loud voices on both (or should I say several) sides of the "aisle" that don't necessarily represent the mainstream on either (or perhaps any) side. And I think there are many...shall we say "shrill"...voices on both sides, and unfortunately also in the media (mainstream and otherwise) that focus overmuch on the extremes all around in order to provoke greater polarization and more drama. For politicians this helps whip up a fervor amongst the voters, who desperately want "the bad guys" (whoever they may be painted as by the voice of the moment) to be defeated, and the "good guys" (again, whoever the voice of choice is backing) to be victorious, leading to a greater base of power. For the media it boosts ratings for much the same reasons.

 

I really think there's a great deal more agreement amongst reasonable people all over the political spectrum than most "voices" would have us believe. And I think the general populace needs to stop listening to the "voices", especially ones that tend to speak mostly in propagandistic nonsense, and start really analyzing what they're being asked to buy into--thinking beyond the "if you don't agree with me you're an intolerant hater, and lets throw a 'hate the haters' party" nonsense. I really think if we'd all quit painting each other with broad-brushed labels and started really listening to each other's actual lines of thinking there would be a lot more understanding, a lot more agreement, and a lot more real "tolerance".

 

And that's my soap box for the night...lol. I really need to quit puttering around forums late at night. Please carry on with your regularly scheduled programming...

[texascamps]

Well, I don't want to get overly political here, and I've probably sidetracked this thread long enough (sorry, all) so I'll just say for what it's worth, I happen to think there are many loud voices on both (or should I say several) sides of the "aisle" that don't necessarily represent the mainstream on either (or perhaps any) side. And I think there are many...shall we say "shrill"...voices on both sides, and unfortunately also in the media (mainstream and otherwise) that focus overmuch on the extremes all around in order to provoke greater polarization and more drama. For politicians this helps whip up a fervor amongst the voters, who desperately want "the bad guys" (whoever they may be painted as by the voice of the moment) to be defeated, and the "good guys" (again, whoever the voice of choice is backing) to be victorious, leading to a greater base of power. For the media it boosts ratings for much the same reasons.

 

I really think there's a great deal more agreement amongst reasonable people all over the political spectrum than most "voices" would have us believe. And I think the general populace needs to stop listening to the "voices", especially ones that tend to speak mostly in propagandistic nonsense, and start really analyzing what they're being asked to buy into--thinking beyond the "if you don't agree with me you're an intolerant hater, and lets throw a 'hate the haters' party" nonsense. I really think if we'd all quit painting each other with broad-brushed labels and started really listening to each other's actual lines of thinking there would be a lot more understanding, a lot more agreement, and a lot more real "tolerance".

 

And that's my soap box for the night...lol. I really need to quit puttering around forums late at night. Please carry on with your regularly scheduled programming...

 

 

Mama Sheep, you are awesome!:lurk5: Thanks!

[pqr]

Such a solution has been offered (that insurance companies bear the cost of contraceptives - which they agreed to because it lowers their overall costs) and rejected by many vocal conservatives.

 

I agree with you, BTW.

 

No company "bears the cost", it gets passed on. Costs are passed on to the consumer. Arguments about the insurance companies paying for this from some invisible fund or simply pulling leaves off a "money tree" in the back garden and it not being passed on to the consumer are smoke and mirrors.

 

Conversely, if as some people say it lowers costs then surely the companies would now offer to lower the costs to the consumers, that is the argument right? So insurance w/ bc will cost less than without that option. If this has happened I might give credence to the argument (perhaps it has, I await evidence).

[MamaSheep]

Mama Sheep, you are awesome!:lurk5: Thanks!

 

Heh...you're very kind. I don't know what's gotten into me lately, but I keep finding myself ranting about one thing or another. Maybe it's hormones. At church a couple of days ago I gave a mini-speech right in the middle of Sunday School about how the entertainment treats men like buffoons and women like consumer products and it seems like there's very little "out there" that is supportive of the ideas I'm trying to instill in my children about how precious it is to be a woman, and how amazing it is to be a man, and how we should value our own gender and respect the other and all that. Because really...

 

But I won't go off on that one again here...lol. I just wonder what has gotten into me. Maybe I just need more sleep.

[stripe]

No company "bears the cost", it gets passed on. Costs are passed on to the consumer. Arguments about the insurance companies paying for this from some invisible fund or simply pulling leaves off a "money tree" in the back garden and it not being passed on to the consumer are smoke and mirrors.

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

The idea that an insurance company pays for your care out of the goodness of its heart -- not because you've paid in ten times the cost already, or else some other insured person did!-- irritates me too. It's a business.. They're there to make money. They like expensive retreats. Why is it hsing mothers never are off on retreat to Hawaii?? Because we'd have to pay for ourselves!

[Truscifi]

Well, I don't want to get overly political here, and I've probably sidetracked this thread long enough (sorry, all) so I'll just say for what it's worth, I happen to think there are many loud voices on both (or should I say several) sides of the "aisle" that don't necessarily represent the mainstream on either (or perhaps any) side. And I think there are many...shall we say "shrill"...voices on both sides, and unfortunately also in the media (mainstream and otherwise) that focus overmuch on the extremes all around in order to provoke greater polarization and more drama. For politicians this helps whip up a fervor amongst the voters, who desperately want "the bad guys" (whoever they may be painted as by the voice of the moment) to be defeated, and the "good guys" (again, whoever the voice of choice is backing) to be victorious, leading to a greater base of power. For the media it boosts ratings for much the same reasons.

 

I really think there's a great deal more agreement amongst reasonable people all over the political spectrum than most "voices" would have us believe. And I think the general populace needs to stop listening to the "voices", especially ones that tend to speak mostly in propagandistic nonsense, and start really analyzing what they're being asked to buy into--thinking beyond the "if you don't agree with me you're an intolerant hater, and lets throw a 'hate the haters' party" nonsense. I really think if we'd all quit painting each other with broad-brushed labels and started really listening to each other's actual lines of thinking there would be a lot more understanding, a lot more agreement, and a lot more real "tolerance".

 

And that's my soap box for the night...lol. I really need to quit puttering around forums late at night. Please carry on with your regularly scheduled programming...

 

I agree. Those loud voices are definitely on both sides.

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

The idea that an insurance company pays for your care out of the goodness of its heart -- not because you've paid in ten times the cost already, or else some other insured person did!-- irritates me too. It's a business.. They're there to make money. They like expensive retreats. Why is it hsing mothers never are off on retreat to Hawaii?? Because we'd have to pay for ourselves!

 

I didn't say they do it out of the goodness of their hearts. And certainly the cost is born by consumers in the form of premiums, as are the cost of all insurance benefits. My understanding is that the overall cost of healthcare for women in this country is lowered by more than the cost of providing free access to contraception. The insurance companies are not going to lower anyone's premiums because their costs are lowered, so they actually profit. I have no statistics to back this up, it is just what I have gleaned from reading about and discussing the topic.

 

Also, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with a compromise regarding religious organizations being forced to pay for something they object having been offered and rejected.

 

But it is late and I'm tired, and this is skating a bit too close to a political thread, so I'll bow out now.

[brandigirl]

What do you guys think?

 

 

Eagles are some of North Americas most beautiful creatures. Not only are they some of the most beautiful creatures of North America they are the National bird of the United States of America. Due to this they have been protected diligently since 1940 under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Until 2007 the bald eagle was considered an endangered species and the US has taken extreme measures to protect their endangered species. In fact the U.S. has spent $1,537,283,091 toward conserving threatened and endangered species in 2007, plus another $126,086,999 in land purchases for habitat preservation. So why is the government granting permission to kill them after spending so much time and money protecting them?

At first glance it may seem like a contradiction, caring them for years and then allowing them to be killed. There is a catch to this law, since the only ones being granted the permits to kill the eagles are Native Americans and even then they are only allowed to kill or capture and release to eagles a year. The reason that the Native Americans are being granted the privilege of killing these eagles is because they “need†them to perform their religious ceremonies. "It has been since the beginning of time with us, and we respectfully utilize the eagle in our ceremonies," said Harvey Spoonhunter, a tribal elder and former chairman of the Northern Arapaho Business Council. "We get to utilize the eagle, which we consider a messenger to the creator."

There are two important issues when evaluating this situation. Can we as not only Americans but people deny the Native Americans their religious rights which were forcibly taken from them. The second issue being how far we will allow religion to influence our decisions even when we are allowing native people to deface the symbol of the United States of America. The answer, is we simply cannot makes this decision will simultaneously pleasing both Native Americans and Americans.

We as a nation created a double standard for ourselves. We pride ourselves on religious freedom but at the same time are known for our fierce patriotism. Although in this situation we are forced to grant Native Americans this right for a multitude of reasons. We have constantly been ignoring the treaties we proposed with them and they stigmas towards Native Americans are extremely violent neither can we violate our promise for religious freedom. Even though religion one this round we must ask ourselves how much we shall allow religion to govern our decisions.

[Whereneverever]

What do you guys think?

 

 

Eagles are some of North Americas most beautiful creatures. Not only are they some of the most beautiful creatures of North America they are the National bird of the United States of America. Due to this they have been protected diligently since 1940 under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Until 2007 the bald eagle was considered an endangered species and the US has taken extreme measures to protect their endangered species. In fact the U.S. has spent $1,537,283,091 toward conserving threatened and endangered species in 2007, plus another $126,086,999 in land purchases for habitat preservation. So why is the government granting permission to kill them after spending so much time and money protecting them?

At first glance it may seem like a contradiction, caring them for years and then allowing them to be killed. There is a catch to this law, since the only ones being granted the permits to kill the eagles are Native Americans and even then they are only allowed to kill or capture and release to eagles a year. The reason that the Native Americans are being granted the privilege of killing these eagles is because they “need†them to perform their religious ceremonies. "It has been since the beginning of time with us, and we respectfully utilize the eagle in our ceremonies," said Harvey Spoonhunter, a tribal elder and former chairman of the Northern Arapaho Business Council. "We get to utilize the eagle, which we consider a messenger to the creator."

There are two important issues when evaluating this situation. Can we as not only Americans but people deny the Native Americans their religious rights which were forcibly taken from them. The second issue being how far we will allow religion to influence our decisions even when we are allowing native people to deface the symbol of the United States of America. The answer, is we simply cannot makes this decision will simultaneously pleasing both Native Americans and Americans.

We as a nation created a double standard for ourselves. We pride ourselves on religious freedom but at the same time are known for our fierce patriotism. Although in this situation we are forced to grant Native Americans this right for a multitude of reasons. We have constantly been ignoring the treaties we proposed with them and they stigmas towards Native Americans are extremely violent neither can we violate our promise for religious freedom. Even though religion one this round we must ask ourselves how much we shall allow religion to govern our decisions.

I would take need out of parenthesis because it so clearly shows your feelings, but otherwise I think you did a good job.

[ktgrok]

No company "bears the cost", it gets passed on. Costs are passed on to the consumer. Arguments about the insurance companies paying for this from some invisible fund or simply pulling leaves off a "money tree" in the back garden and it not being passed on to the consumer are smoke and mirrors.

 

Conversely, if as some people say it lowers costs then surely the companies would now offer to lower the costs to the consumers, that is the argument right? So insurance w/ bc will cost less than without that option. If this has happened I might give credence to the argument (perhaps it has, I await evidence).

 

It costs less because paying for BC is cheaper than paying for pregnancy. And no, they don't pass on the cost savings to the consumer, because they are greedy.

[pqr]

It costs less because paying for BC is cheaper than paying for pregnancy. And no, they don't pass on the cost savings to the consumer, because they are greedy.

 

 

Seems logical.....so they offer policies that specifically exclude birth control at higher prices than policies that include birth control? Surely in the effort to make money and beat their competitors they would do this. That too would be logical would it not be?

 

Th point is that I simply do not know the costs and how they are broken down, but am always interested in facts and figures to make the point.

[ktgrok]

Seems logical.....so they offer policies that specifically exclude birth control at higher prices than policies that include birth control? Surely in the effort to make money and beat their competitors they would do this. That too would be logical would it not be?

 

Th point is that I simply do not know the costs and how they are broken down, but am always interested in facts and figures to make the point.

 

No, because no one would choose that plan. They would pay less for the "covers birth control plan" and then just not buy/use birth control.