Hello:

Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?

excon

If they want to be an insurance company, they are governed by the same laws as ALL the insurance companies are regulated, and governed by. What's the problem??

Whats the problem????Hello tal:

Well, the Catholic church wants to be a hospital, but wants to treat its employees and its patients like they're getting ministered to instead of treated and paid for the work they do.

Specifically, the church won't cover insurance for its employees IF it pays for contraception, and it won't provide contraception services to its patients. Please note, tal, that we're not talking about abortion here. It's contraception...

excon

What are you complaining about? Free enterprise and the right to refuse service to anyone?

Ouch, I knew it would be something DUMB. But isn't this the same bunch that protects phedophiles from the law? What would you expect from these type of NUTS!!

Ouch, I knew it would be something DUMB. But isn't this the same bunch that protects phedophiles from the law? What would you expect from these type of NUTS!!!

These "NUTS" are widely acknowledged to have provided hospital services second to none. Care for the patient comes before technology - a philosophy sadly missing in far too many hospitals.

They have a perfect right to decide which insurance carrier they should use. If the carrier violates their religious principles, they should not be compelled to use it.

If, on the other hand, the Church itself gets into the insurance business offering coverage to whomever, they should definitely be under the same rules of all insurance providers - and not expect to be treated as a religious organization.

A hospital and a insurance company are two different things. Insurance pays the hospital. In the early days, it was the Churches that provided a lot of the medical care and many of the first hospitals. All hospitals have the right to decide if they will or will not take public funds, ( reason many large private hospitals don't have to take charity cases) But many insurance companies pay so poorly, that many hospitals don't accept them, For doctor office, many don't take 1/2 or more of the insurance carriers. Or types of plans, I have to change doctors almost every time my old work place charged carriers.

In fact, did you know Blue Cross/Blue Shield, was a 501C3 tax exempt non profit association, till 1986. They were operating under the same protection. In fact back when they were a non profit, you did not have to be a licensed insurance agent to sell their products,

The Catholic Church has always had it's business/service arm and they are protected from many recent laws.

This is different to outright lawlessness in the protection of a criminal element in their ranks. They have not yet emerged from the middle ages.

The church is not the insurance company. But ;like all employers that provide the benefit ;they get to set the terms of their coverage. That was until Obama came along.

This is one of the biggest blunders the President has made. All around the country ,Priests read to their congregations their objection to this imposing on the moral foundations of the church. It will be the one thing that unites a divided Catholic population in opposition to the President .

Catholic hospitals are "non-profit" entities. For profit hospitals are still a fairly new concept, ex, but I've already pointed that out and that the church has provided health care services for centuries. You apparently have some mixed views of separation of church and state my friend.

Oh, and churches have also banded together to provide "insurance" coverage as well so to speak. Our city self-funds it's employee care as well, so who said "insurance" had to be a for-profit endeavor anyway?

Catholic hospitals are "non-profit" entities. For profit hospitals are still a fairly new concept, ex, but I've already pointed that out and that the church has provided health care services for centuries. You apparently have some mixed views of separation of church and state my friend.

Oh, and churches have also banded together to provide "insurance" coverage as well so to speak. Our city self-funds it's employee care as well, so who said "insurance" had to be a for-profit endeavor anyway?

The insurance companies!

Yes, as are all for profit businesses, but making a profit is evil to the current regime and the occupiers which is why instead of encouraging success, they want the successful brought down. Unless of course you're an Obama donor, a union boss or Jon Corzine.

Making profit is not evil. What's evil is making profit by taking it from others, and having no fair exchange. You better look up the details of American Airlines emerging from bankruptcy, and the states fighting insurance companies the last 7 years to understand the business model of these companies better. California, and Kansas are the best illustrations of increasing profits at the expense of people.

It also illustrates the mad scramble by companies to raise prices fast while they can, as we have seen the last two years. Its interesting and eye opening.

Just on a personal note, I don't believe you take a rape victims choice for the day after contraception away from them. Or let a female having a difficult pregnancy, suffer for lack of proper care. That's basically what it comes down to.

Then again 90% of the congregation is likely on some form of birth control so the morality argument is spurious at best.

Then again 90% of the congregation is likely on some form of birth control so the morality argument is spurious at best.

The morality argument is the government has no right to dictate church doctrine.

Making profit is not evil. What's evil is making profit by taking it from others, and having no fair exchange.

If the customer agrees to pay the price for the product and receives that product, that's a fair exchange. What Corzine and his company did was not a fair exchange.


Just on a personal note, I don't believe you take a rape victims choice for the day after contraception away from them. Or let a female having a difficult pregnancy, suffer for lack of proper care. That's basically what it comes down to.

No it doesn't, it comes down to the Obama administrator dictating church doctrine or getting out of the game for services and products that are readily and reasonably available elsewhere. Access to contraception is a spurious argument, PP would love to give your kids contraception.

The morality argument is the government has no right to dictate church doctrine.
It isn't. "Making available" is not imposing doctrine. Don't want an abortion? Then don't get one! Don't believe in contraception? Then don't buy any! But stop imposing your will on others.

Imagine the government telling the Orthodox Jews they can no longer segregate in temple based on sex. Imagine the government telling the Catholic church they must employ female clergy or conduct marriages for homosexuals.
Obama is indeed the high priest of the USA .

It isn't. "Making available" is not imposing doctrine. Don't want an abortion? Then don't get one! Don't believe in contraception? Then don't buy any! But stop imposing your will on others.

It darn sure is, NK. Requiring Catholic providers to furnish free birth control violates church doctrine, period. That, my friend is the height of "imposing your will on others", so spare us your protests.

It darn sure is, NK. Requiring Catholic providers to furnish free birth control violates church doctrine, period. That, my friend is the height of "imposing your will on others", so spare us your protests.
What protests? If the users of the insurance never require any birth control then it's a non-issue since it'll never be asked for, but the weird part is that catholics do use contraception as much as atheists or jews or any other segment of society.

What protests? If the users of the insurance never require any birth control then it's a non-issue since it'll never be asked for, but the weird part is that catholics do use contraception as much as atheists or jews or any other segment of society.

NK, it doesn't matter what the individual does, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to dictate church doctrine, period. It's not weird, it's black and white. Your argument is nothing but a straw man.

They aren't dictating, they are saying that ALL insurance companies need to provide those certain services.

If my argument is a strawman then your Obama/hypocrite argument is also a strawman since the catholics are being incredible hypocrites by, one the one hand, making the argument you are making then on the other hand personally using contraception. You see no issue there at all?

Pope Paul VI 's 'Theology of the Body' makes it clear that artificial contraception is taboo. There is no compromise and it's outrageous that the state would impose values on the church that is antithetical to it's beliefs .

Pope Paul VI 's 'Theology of the Body' makes it clear that artificial contraception is taboo. There is no compromise and it's outrageous that the state would impose values on the church that is antithetical to it's beliefs .
But it's OK that the congregation uses contraception right? Is that not a bigger issue? Should a test be given to the faithful or else refuse entry to the church?

What is it about "requiring" do you not understand? Does it have a different meaning in Canada? Are you also incapable of distinguishing between the "individual" church member and the "church"? Of course the church is full of hypocrites, there's always room for one more if you're interested, but member behavior does not negate church doctrine. There is no straw man it's black and white.

What part of "you are free to select which services to use" do you not understand? See we can all be condescending like you! Cool eh?
I love how you have absolutely no problem with the churches being full of hypocrites, like it's a normal everyday thing. But if there's a liberal hypocrite then WHOA!. time to start another thread! LOL! You're funny.

What part of "you are free to select which services to use" do you not understand? See we can all be condescending like you! Cool eh?

What part of "you are free to find employment elsewhere" don't you understand?


I love how you have absolutely no problem with the churches being full of hypocrites, like it's a normal everyday thing. But if there's a liberal hypocrite then WHOA!. time to start another thread! LOL! You're funny.

I never said I didn't have a problem with it, I acknowledged there is a problem - I'm still waiting for the left to acknowledge their hypocrites.

My point remains the same, having hypocrites in the church is no justification to allow this unconstitutional, unethical power grab. Nothing funny about it.

But it's ok that the congregation uses contraception right? Is that not a bigger issue? Should a test be given to the faithful or else refuse entry to the church?

We are people with free will. The church does NOT approve of the congregation using artificial constraception;nor will it tolerate the dictates of the state on this matter . They will 'lay their necks to the sword ' first .

Good luck with your outrage. But you should clean your own house first.

Good luck with your outrage. But you should clean your own house first.

Nice try but still utterly, totally, completely, unequivocally irrelevant to the issue.

Nice try but still utterly, totally, completely, unequivocally irrelevant to the issue.For you maybe because you turn a blind eye to it all but not for others.

For you maybe because you turn a blind eye to it all but not for others.

Dude, I acknowledged hypocrites in the church twice, 'tis you turning the blind eye.

I repeat, whether a parishioner lives in perfect obedience to church doctrine is utterly, totally, completely, unequivocally irrelevant to the issue. The government is expressly forbidden from establishing church doctrine or preventing the free exercise - or not - of said doctrine.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

You are in no way being prohibited from exercising your religion. It's quite simple.

Karma what is your interest in religion you are an atheist

I enjoy spirited debate, don't you? Also it good to expose faulty arguments when they surface. I don't drive an F1 car but I enjoy watching the races.

You are in no way being prohibited from exercising your religion. It's quite simple

Huh ? The church is forced to do something completely against it's tenents .

a) The church is not an insurance company
b) once again, you are not being prohibited from practicing your beliefs

Where does it say the church is prohibited from offering contracts of insurance?

There is great confusion here over the roles of organisations and their relationship to government. As I understand it the government must not prohibit the establishment of any religion and is prohibited from establishing a state religion. I don't read that it is able to prohibit the church from commercial activities however it does have the power to regulate commercial activities. Commercial activities are not an inherent part of religious activities and so a church must be subject to regulation in this regard just as any other. Any commercial organisation is free to determine what services it provides and which it does not.

Where we have a problem is where the state in order to enforce policy ties subsidy to regulation and there by makes rules which contravene religious principles

We cannot regulate or force the church to do anything, nor should we, but insurance is a business, and therefore regulated. The church like everyone else can either buy it or not, and if the policy goes against there doctrines or whatever, then they don't have to deal with it, but they don't get to force companies to observe there doctrines, follow there beliefs, or limit in any way the free choice in a free society.

If its against the church, where do all those catholics get birth control? So why dictate what a private business offers in product? Buy it, or you don't just like the rest of us. Or pay the workers a wage that they can get their own insurance, and have there needs met under the law, no matter what religion you are.

Exemptions or not, I find it hypocrisy that they rail against the obamacare law when 24 states have the same law on the books about pay for the full range of reproductive services for women.

Pill bills: States that mandate contraceptive equality | Insure.com (http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/pill-bills.html)


Twenty-four states require that health insurers cover contraceptives, up from 20 in 2004, according to the National Women's Law Center (NWLC). Generally, these state laws say that if a health insurance policy includes coverage for prescription drugs, it must also cover prescription contraceptives, according to NWLC. However, these mandates to not apply to self-insured plans and most states allow religious employers such as churches to refuse to carry contraceptive coverage.

The church has options already so what's the big deal now, and its funny to me that not all females are trying to prevent pregnancy, they are preventing certain cancers specific to females, or have high chances of complications due to pregnancy.


No it doesn't, it comes down to the Obama administrator dictating church doctrine or getting out of the game for services and products that are readily and reasonably available elsewhere. Access to contraception is a spurious argument, PP would love to give your kids contraception

Funny how you want to do away with the very place poor people and the uninsured go for over all female health care. And of course you blame Obama for an argument that's started way before he he became president and why do righties always say that any one who doesn't agree with them is dictating, but its okay for them to dictate sticking there nose into my freedom to chose.

By my logic, more contraceptives, less abortions. Just for the record, I talked to my kids at puberty, and birth control, yes both male and female followed shortly after. Just in case the only true birth control, ABSTINANCE, didn't work.

I will write a letter to my Bishop today recommending that all Catholic Hospitals, Day Centers, Catholic nursing homes, Shelters shut down in a year rather than succumb to this unconstitutional dictate.

This country was originally settled by people escaping State interference in the affairs of religious institutions and compelling their values on the people of faith . The founders recognized this and wrote the establishment clause specifically to deny the state the power to impose rules that go against the values of religion.

This really is a line in the sand issue. Let's see the state replace all those services since that is the goal of the "progressive "socialists anyway.

There are 70 million Catholic voters Mr President . Maybe you want to reconsider ?

Those 70 million want their contraception! You lose! LOL!

Then they will vote appropriately..

Correct. I sense that they would be less full of indignation than you due to their being less full of hate.

You know nothing .

I enjoy spirited debate, don't you? Also it good to expose faulty arguments when they surface. I don't drive an F1 car but I enjoy watching the races.

The only faulty arguments so far in this discussion are yours. This decision has been roundly criticized by both left and right. Even USA Today said yesterday in response to Sebelius' spurious argument that it still protects religious rights that the "Contraception mandate violates religious freedom (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1)".

They are right, it does violate religious freedom. It's that simple to most everyone but you.

You should read the article, it's not as cut and dried as you try to make it appear to be. Also it's an editorial piece.

Hello again, Steve:

I'm not impressed with WHO likes the decision and WHO doesn't. There are a lot of Catholics on BOTH sides of the aisle. MOST people don't view the First Amendment like I do. As you know, I'm pretty much an absolutest.. I believe our government cannot tell a church HOW to be a church...

But, when a church decides to be something OTHER than a church, then they should be treated exactly like the other entities involved in the same activity... If a church WANTS the protections the Constitution grants them, they need to BE a church. So, I dispute the headline above. A hospital, even if it's run and owned by a church, is still a HOSPITAL and NOT a church.

excon

So my solution is the right one . Shut them all down and let's see the government screw ups try to run them.

I'm not impressed with WHO likes the decision and WHO doesn't. There are a lot of Catholics on BOTH sides of the aisle. MOST people don't view the First Amendment like I do. As you know, I'm pretty much an absolutest.. I believe our government cannot tell a church HOW to be a church...

BUT, you think forcing them out of their ministries is OK because money exchanges hands? That's what this is you know, a ministry, an extension of the church.


But, when a church decides to be something OTHER than a church, then they should be treated exactly like the other entities involved in the same activity... If a church WANTS the protections the Constitution grants them, they need to BE a church. So, I dispute the headline above. A hospital, even if it's run and owned by a church, is still a HOSPITAL and NOT a church.

Again, it is a MINISTRY of the church. It is an EXTENSION of the church, and it has been that way for ages. I'm with tom, let's just close all church ministries that aren't specifically a house of worship; hospitals, clinics, day cares, schools, orphanages, feeding centers, food pantries, homeless shelters, disaster relief teams, domestic violence centers, etc. and let the government - or you - take care of everyone. You're not going to like the results when the church is taken out of the equation.

Nope, the free market cures all ills - remember?

Also it's an editorial piece.

Duh.

Again, it is a MINISTRY of the church. It is an EXTENSION of the church, and it has been that way for ages.Hello again, Steve:

And, if I wanted First Amendment protections, I'd say that too...

But, I've been to a church, and I've been to a hospital.. They AIN'T the same thing. They're not even close.

Let me ask you this.. Let's say I started the Church of Blessed Marijuana. Would I be protected? Why not? Under the First Amendment, I absolutely believe that I SHOULD be protected. But, if I opened a medical cannabis dispensary, I'd need a city license, and I'd need to pay sales tax... No??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

And, if I wanted First Amendment protections, I'd say that too...

But, I've been to a church, and I've been to a hospital.. They AIN'T the same thing. They're not even close.

You still ignore history. If it weren't for the church you might not even have a hospital. Here's the story of one of ours (http://www.bsahs.org/body.cfm?id=23):


On February 13, 1901, four young women from the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio arrived in Amarillo to start a health care facility that would meet the medical needs of the 1,422 citizens of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle. The facility was named St. Anthony’s Hospital. These remarkable women faced many challenges and hardships including cold winters, the remoteness of the building with no means of transportation, and most of all an atmosphere of mistrust by the citizens of the Panhandle.

Patients began to seek out St. Anthony’s Hospital during an epidemic of typhoid in 1907. The sisters took responsibility for nursing the patients, and the general public began to realize the devotion of the sisters. St. Anthony’s Hospital went on to establish the area’s first nursing school, cardiac unit, and hospice facility.

Between 1950 and 1960, the population of Amarillo increased by 84%, which created a need for more hospital beds and physicians. The Amarillo Area Foundation began planning for a new hospital with support from the Baptist General Convention of Texas to bring about this much needed facility. On February 28, 1968, the 68 beds of High Plains Baptist Hospital were opened to the public. Its accomplishments include establishing the area’s first day surgery center and pioneering in rehabilitation services and occupational therapy.

In February 1996, High Plains Baptist Hospital and St. Anthony’s Hospital announced the final step that consolidated the two former competitors into a new healthcare system. Today, Baptist St. Anthony’s Health System (BSA) combines the services, employees, and physicians of both former hospitals into a major employer that offers full service health care, employs more than 2,700 people and has a medical staff of more than 450 physicians.

BSA, a co-ministry of Baptist Community Services of Amarillo, Texas and CHRISTUS Health of Irving, Texas, fosters an environment that allows employees to provide superior patient care in alignment with our mission—to provide quality healthcare in Christian love, service and dignity.

It is a fantastic hospital, one of the best in the country (http://www.bsahs.org/body.cfm?id=22) and I wasn't using mere words looking for first amendment protection - history is on my side. You'd be OK with it shutting down rather than violate its beliefs. We wouldn't.


Let me ask you this.. Let's say I started the Church of Blessed Marijuana. Would I be protected? Why not? Under the First Amendment, I absolutely believe that I SHOULD be protected. But, if I opened a medical cannabis dispensary, I'd need a city license, and I'd need to pay sales tax... No??

Start your church and give it a go. I'd love to follow the story.

You still ignore history. Hello again, Steve:

I don't ignore history.. I just don't believe that history should dictate the present. We had a history of slavery, and changed it. We had a history of not letting gays serve in the military. We changed it. We had a history of letting old people starve on the street, and we changed that too.

I have NO problem with treating EVERYTHING that isn't a church, exactly like it ISN'T a church. I don't mind if it goes AGAINST what we've always done.

excon

What you have a problem with is understanding the church is not a building.

Church is a non-profit faith-based organization, your hospital is not.

Church is a non-profit faith-based organization, your hospital is not.

Um, yes it is. By every legal definition it most definitely is.

The Rastafarians have won court cases in Guam ,but have not in the states yet. A panel of the 9th circus ruled that protections granted by the 1993 RFRA Act permits the personal use and possession of cannabis ; but not the sale or importation, for religious purposes. The court specifically found that the federal territory's controlled substance statute substantially burdened the free exercise clause .

I think that eventually the Supremes will have to rule on it . Some Native religions have gotten exceptions for peyote ;an otherwise controlled substance .Native Americans are allowed to answer "no" on the armed forces application question, "Have you ever used illegal drugs?", with respect to peyote.

Um, yes it is. By every legal definition it most definitely is.
It's a non-profit? Really?

Um, yes, We have a lot of non-profit hospitals in this country but I've already said that several times.

one of ours (http://www.bsahs.org/body.cfm?id=23):



It is a fantastic hospital, one of the best in the country (http://www.bsahs.org/body.cfm?id=22) and I wasn't using mere words looking for first amendment protection - history is on my side. You'd be ok with it shutting down rather than violate its beliefs.
It believes in women using contraception so I guess it's a respectable hospital (and this is without anyone telling them to do so):
Birth control options for women

Highlights

Birth Control Options
Birth control options for women include:
Hormonal contraceptives, such as birth control pills, skin patch, vaginal ring
Intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Barrier devices, such as condoms, diaphragm, and the cervical cap
Fertility awareness methods
Sterilization (http://www.bsahs.org/body_wellness.cfm?xyzpdqabc=0&id=371&action=detail&AEProductID=Adam2004_10&AEArticleID=000091&AEArticleType=default)

You do realize that does not necessarily reflect the views of the Hospital, it's provided by ADAM.

Hello again, Steve:

The hospitals won't shut down.. The church will have to get used to their hospitals BEING hospitals INSTEAD of church's, which IS reality, after all. If they can't, then they'll be sold.

excon

I can't wait until this regime mandates that Muslim providers must perform vasectomies.

I can't wait until this regime mandates that Muslim providers must perform vasectomies.

Nice try but still utterly, totally, completely, unequivocally irrelevant to the issue.

Hello again, Steve:

The hospitals won't shut down.. The church will have to get used to their hospitals BEING hospitals INSTEAD of church's, which IS reality, after all. If they can't, then they'll be sold.

excon

Nah just hand them over to Pope Obama (he became Pope in a recess appointment ) .

Nice try but still utterly, totally, completely, unequivocally irrelevant to the issue.

How so?

How so?

Wait until the Republicans try to kill all liberals, then people will understand their crazy regime!

Hello again, Steve:

And, if I wanted First Amendment protections, I'd say that too...

But, I've been to a church, and I've been to a hospital.. They AIN'T the same thing. They're not even close.

Lemme ask you this.. Let's say I started the Church of Blessed Marijuana. Would I be protected? Why not? Under the First Amendment, I absolutely believe that I SHOULD be protected. But, if I opened a medical cannabis dispensary, I'd need a city license, and I'd need to pay sales tax... No????

excon


Hi Ex,

In the end it will probably be up to the black robed oligarchs of the supreme court to make the call.

Tut

Wait until the Republicans try to kill all liberals, then people will understand their crazy regime!

Well, that was an unhinged remark.

If insurance pays for viagra, then why not pay for the pill? Oh that's right, the catholic church don't think woman are as entitled as men.

Hi Ex,

In the end it will probably be up to the black robed oligarchs of the supreme court to make the call.

Tut

Indeed it will... This dictate comes close to the antics the national statists pulled on the Catholic Church in the 1930s in Europe.

Hello:

Let me say again, church's are given their exemption from taxes BECAUSE they're churches.. If they want to BE something else, that's cool, they certainly may be, but they're no longer churches.

excon

Get rid of the tax exemption. That shouldn't be a quid pro quo for the state to dictate terms that are morally offensive and if it is then shame on the state . Just the fact that the church is providing these non-profit services should be enough to justify the tax breaks . But if the state is going to use the tax break as a yoke around the churches neck then I just as soon it was ended.

Tom you know as well as I do that it suits government to have churches provide services to the community, it means they don't have to do it

yes of course. This stuff going on is getting earily similar to the Reichskonkordat the church was forced to sign .

"We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognise a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is the master. They will know which way the wind blows"
[Adolf Hitler quoted in 'The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany' by Guenter Lewy ]

To do the services under the terms the state imposes ,if it goes against the church's values ,is a deal with the devil.

The Church has been dealing with the devil for two thousand years, this is why you don't hear them mention him often

Like I said, once you get the church out of the 'business' of helping people, you're not going to like it much. I can hear it now, "if only we hadn't forced the church to stop feeding people, clothing people, providing health care, helping out in disasters, ministering to prisoners, taking care of orphans and abused women..."

Be careful what you ask for. I'm just sayin'...

They have been dealing with this issue for so long that an exemption is inevitable. Case closed. Its all over except the shouting, and 98% of catholic women will continue to get their contraceptions, as they have all along. The poor catholics can still go to planned parent hood, like they have been doing. To bad the repubs are on the wrong side of women's health issues. Well the ones who are running for president anyway. I just can't see repubs females voting for some one that takes away the pill, or makes it hard to get.

Obviously nobody listens to the celibate old guy who protect pedophiles.

Who the hell is trying to take away the pill? Come on Tal, get real.

Like I said, once you get the church out of the 'business' of helping people,Hello again, Steve:

If the church wants to pick up its blocks and not play anymore, they can bite my American a$$. I'll bet the Jewish hospitals obey the law.

excon

First they came for the Catholics.....

First they came for the Catholics.....Hello again, tom:

Spare me the histrionics... I actually thought you were above that.

excon

and you haven't used a variation of that quote before ? Please spare me .

You have completely ignored the implications of the state imposing conditions on a religious institution that violates it's values. This is not restricting them from something ;like your pot example . This is telling them they MUST do something morally objectionable to them.
You don't see the ridiculous position that puts them in ? That they would have canon that prohibits artificial contraception while they provide it as a benefit ? Come on ! Suppose the state told your Jewish shelter that they MUST work on the sabbath ?

You don't see the rediculous position that puts them in ??Hello again, tom:

I DO see the conflict between religious freedom and women's rights. I just happen to come down on the side of woman's reproductive rights.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

If the church wants to pick up its blocks and not play anymore, they can bite my American a$$. I'll bet the Jewish hospitals obey the law.

excon

I don't know, looks to me like they're in cahoots with the Catholics, too.

Welcome to Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's HealthCare (http://www.jhsmh.org/)

Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's HealthCare is a not-for-profit health care system with hospitals, outpatient care centers and physician offices located in the Louisville, Kentucky region.

Hello again, tom:

I DO see the conflict between religious freedom and women's rights. I just happen to come down on the side of woman's reproductive rights.

excon

Aha, so a woman's right to free contraceptives trumps my specifically defined constitutional right to freedom of religion? Dude! I think I have a right to free Dos Equis Ambar. If a woman doesn't have to pay for her own birth control pills I shouldn't have to pay for my beer.

VP Biden is a Catholic and has been conspicuously silent on this issue.

I think he should put his cards on the table like Madame Mimi did.

Interesting stuff . Now I will write a letter to my Bishop suggesting the church stops this practice immediately . The church survived very well before the progressives began imposing unacceptable terms .


Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.



501c3: Facts about 501c3 tax-exempt status for the church (http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm)

yes of course. This stuff going on is getting earily simular to the Reichskonkordat the church was forced to sign .

"We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognise a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is the master. They will know which way the wind blows"
[Adolf Hitler quoted in 'The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany' by Guenter Lewy ]

To do the services under the terms the state imposes ,if it goes against the church's values ,is a deal with the devil.


Tom, this is is an absurd analogy. You know as well as I do the state will determine what the church will and won't do. In this particular instance it will be determined by the High Court.

Tut

This is not an invalid comparison at all ! This will leave the church only two options ;comply with the dicates of the secular pope of America ;or discontinue funding health care for it's employees .

I think politics will be the determining factor. This moron we call President knows very well that many key swing states are populated by sizable Catholic populations.

Besides that ;what he does to the Catholics he also does to every religious organization in the country . They will stand in solidarity with the Catholics on this .

I predict a backing down before the elections ;and then if he is reelected ;God help us all. All bets are off. The courts will not stand up to his dictates.
We will have our own version of Hugo Chavez occupying the White House.

You have to understand that the Obots have already stated their goal of removing private charity from the public option. They want to change the tax codes for that purpose ;and with this putsch it is clear that he wants to take over the traditional religious role in administering charity .The statists of American are convinced that only the Levithian is competent in determining who needs charity ,how it should be paid for ,and who should administer it.

If its such a big deal, then the church should stop offering health insurance. But its clear that a vote for the republicans will affect more than catholics, it will affect ALL the females in the country in an adverse and profound way, but we already know that.

Now we could fix this very EASILY with a single payer system, and get rid of employer based health insurance. Then workers wouldn't be screwed by YOUR religion, or the boss. And you could take a job not for the insurance, but the money.

Fascinating seeing everybody jump up and down and holler foul, at the president, and not the states that they have been doing all this charity working in for decades now, under the SAME rules, and in many cases, even more restrictive than the one they cry about now.
My point is it was no big deal before, why is it NOW. Sounds like more right wing BS to me trying to disguise pushing religious belief down the throats of those that want no part of it, in the name of religious freedom. The church should not be allowed to discriminate who gets what, and dictate there policy to others, especially not the business private sector. So feed the hungry, or not, but to deny the needs health wise of half the population is a very direct slap in the face of ministry and charity, they claim their mission is. For sure it makes all those good works seem like a carrot to gain influence by some at least, and lets be specific what I am talking about is the policy makers of the catholic church, because obviously the people on the ground who do the work don't care what they say.

Heck if 98% of the churches females use contraceptives, what makes you think they are listening to the pope in the first place? But I do think they will vote against anyone who tries to take that choice away from them.

Geez, its okay for the state to tell you what to do, or NOT, but its not okay for the government to?? Religion should get out of the way between a person, and their GOD!

If its such a big deal, then the church should stop offering health insurance. But its clear that a vote for the republicans will affect more than catholics, it will affect ALL the females in the country in an adverse and profound way, but we already know that.

That's more fear mongering nonsense, Tal. Contraception is already readily available and accessible. Things were just fine on this front until Obama fouled them up and you know what, it's going to bite him in the a$$.

The fear mongering is on the right, by you guys who holler freedom of religion, over a practice that's been going on for decades. The truth is it started with Newt, hollering about what Romney did as governor, which nobody said SQUAT about until NEWT brought it up, and the right wing wants to paint the prez with the same brush to kill two birds with one stone.

Fact is the catholic church has provided all these services for freakin' decades, (Thats what your link said, not me.) so b1itchin' about it now is about politics, and the right wing social agenda. Don't worry, the whole thing goes away when they have something else to scream at the left about!! Or that make Santorum look better than what he is.

What you thought this was about freedom of religion?? Naw, the Catholic Church is free as ever to do what they do. As long as they follow the rules of the American society that apply to us all. Even the pope is entitled to express their opinion, but he isn't allowed to vote or dictate.

I'm calling bullsh*t. What link did I furnish that said the Catholic church has been providing free contraceptives for decades? Seriously, until you stop making crap up we can't have an honest discussion.

Fact is, contraceptives are readily available and accessible. This regime believes wrongly that every woman has a nonexistent constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay. I can show you my constitutional right to freedom from being forced to violate my religious beliefs, you show me your constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay. Put up or shut up.

I predict a backing down before the elections ;and then if he is reelected ;God help us all. All bets are off. The courts will not stand up to his dictates.
We will have our own version of Hugo Chavez occupying the White House.



Hi Tom,

If this happens then there is something seriously wrong with your political system.

Comments we have seen thus far ; interpreted as, violating the constitution references to dictatorships, running roughshod over the courts. Are these scare tactics or do you think yours and other similar comments are a calculated ploy? I am wanting to know. Do you actually believe these comments?

Tut

Tut, Tom believes what Tom believes until he arrives at a different opinion. Sometimes he is conservative, sometimes he is not.

violating the constitution... check yes

References to dictatorships... perhaps some hyperbole ;but no less than the left used describing Bush for 8 years .

Running roughshod over the courts... to be determined..

I will say in a similar recent case about church employment practices that the left considered "unfair" and "discriminatory ",the court ruled in favor of the religious organization.

Do I believe them ;absolutely the President has already shown that he can take it or leave it when it comes to Constitutional issues . He specifically argued in the past that the founders blew it because there weren't more positive rights enumerated . The fact that he would even consider imposing these conditions on religion shows he doesn't give a d@mn about the most basic rights enumerated .

violating the constitution .....check yes

references to dictatorships....perhaps some hyperbole ;but no less than the left used describing Bush for 8 years.

I believe you can still buy Bush*tler shirts.

I find it interesting that excon calls him "Bush on steroids" but defends him every time we protest one of his power grabs. This one is his most shameless and disturbing. So far...

Here's some interesting reading about the right's war on Obama:

5 Big Lies About the Phony 'War on Religion' | | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/154059/5_big_lies_about_the_phony_%27war_on_religion%27)

Thanks NK, their first "lie" is a lie. No need to go further, nothing to see there.

No it isn't since you can't even refute it. It's true and you know it.
It's fun to watch you come in and say it's a lie with absolutely no supporting info while the article links to its sources. LOL!

I believe you can still buy Bush*tler shirts.

I find it interesting that excon calls him "Bush on steroids" but defends him every time we protest one of his power grabs. This one is his most shameless and disturbing. So far...

Hi Speech,

"Shameless and disturbing?" So you mean there have been other power grabs by politicians on both sides that don't compare? Don't worry future administrations regardless of their political persuasion will run with this gauntlet.



Tut

Hi Speech,

"Shameless and disturbing?" So you mean there have been other power grabs by politicians on both sides that don't compare? Don't worry future administrations regardless of their political persuasion will run with this gauntlet.

Tut

No, I mean this is HIS most shameless and disturbing, just as I said.

No it isn't since you can't even refute it. It's true and you know it.
It's fun to watch you come in and say it's a lie with absolutely no supporting info while the article links to its sources. LOL!

Been refuting it flawlessly all week, I just can't copy and paste their lies using my phone. So now that I'm at my desktop...


Republican politicians and religious-right leaders—particularly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, known previously for its willingness to tank healthcare reform over private abortion coverage that women could purchase with their own money—are claiming, incredibly, that the Obama administration's ruling that birth control should be covered by health insurance without a co-pay infringes on their freedom of religion.

A) The ruling is not that "birth control should be covered", the ruling is birth control AND abortifacients MUST be covered.

B) The Catholic church including their works such as "homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-poor-pay-the-price-for-obamas-political-calculation/2012/02/06/gIQAU7W5uQ_story.html)", etc., regardless of member behavior stands doctrinally against birth control and abortifacients. This violates their constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Period.

It does not matter if some Catholics believe in birth control or if some Catholic institutions furnish birth control, that does not justify mandating ALL Catholic institutions violate their beliefs. THta's the same stupid argument Planned Parenthood uses to justify violating parental rights. "Kids are going to have sex anyway so we're going to violate your house rules and provide them anyway."

Hello again:

So, I understand that STATES, like mine, have laws that MIRROR the policy the HHS just instituted.

Why doesn't it bother you when a STATE does it?

excon

Dude, if the church in your state wants to make a deal with the devil that's not my problem. Most that do have this provision provide an exemption for religious employers. As for those that don't I'm surprised this hasn't already been challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on religious rights. But don't worry, Obama has awakened a sleeping giant so I expect that to change.

As for those that don't I'm surprised this hasn't already been challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on religious rights. Answer: because it isn't.

State mandates have been challenged at least twice. In 2007 New York state’s Women Health and Wellness Act of 2007 was challenged. An appeal by Catholic Charities of Sacramento of a California law requiring prescription coverage to include contraceptives was also challenged . SCOTUS decided to not hear the cases . That doesn't mean that they aren't violations . It just means that SCOTUS probably decided it was a states power issue ,or didn't think it important enough to intervene. It is my view that SCOTUS will have no choice but to hear a challenge to a Federal law on this issue.

Catholic challenge to contraception law is rejected in New York :: Catholic News Agency (CNA) (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_challenge_to_contraception_law_is_rejecte d_in_new_york/)

Sebelius admitted already she used the NY ,California and Oregon laws as template for crafting this regulation. These are the states that have gotten away with violating the religious freedoms the most. If it succeeds on a national level that'll be used as a precedent for more and more religious encroachments in the future.

Answer: because it isn't.

What tom said. This isn't over, a woman's mythical "right" to free contraceptives does not trump my explicit right to freedom of religion.

Still not getting how getting free contraceptives affects your freedom of religion.

Suppose not . But I get it . That's why I support the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012'

I'm calling bullsh*t. What link did I furnish that said the Catholic church has been providing free contraceptives for decades? Seriously, until you stop making crap up we can't have an honest discussion.
Read it again, I didn't say free, I said "freakin", as an explicative
Fact is, contraceptives are readily available and accessible. This regime believes wrongly that every woman has a nonexistent constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay.
They have a right to health care, and contraceptives are a key to preventive maintenance for many woman. To deny that is blatant discrimination.The solution is easy, don't offer a prescription drug coverage in the policies. I can show you my constitutional right to freedom from being forced to violate my religious beliefs, you show me your constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay. Put up or shut up.

Okay, show me where your rights are being violated! Love to see that!

What tom said. This isn't over, a woman's mythical "right" to free contraceptives does not trump my explicit right to freedom of religion.

Hi Speech,

Probably not quite. As I understand your constitution your right to religious freedom comes with a caveat.

Secular law takes precedence if it can be show that the issue is of enough importance. In other words, a decision in relation to religious freedom would be enunciated under 'the strict scrutiny' review.

That's may understanding, what's yours?

I don't think the current Obama proposal would pass this strict scrutiny test. Then on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.

Tut

Hi Speech,

Probably not quite. As I understand your constitution your right to religious freedom comes with a caveat.

Secular law takes precedence if it can be show that the issue is of enough importance. In other words, a decision in relation to religious freedom would be enunciated under 'the strict scrutiny' review.

That's may understanding, what's yours?

I don't think the current Obama proposal would pass this strict scrutiny test. Then on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.

Tut

Render unto Obama .........

Render unto Obama .........


What does that mean??

What does that mean?????He's comparing Obama to Caesar. The right-wing fanatics do that in that country, they'll allude that the leader from the other side that they despise is akin to Hitler (he's already done in this thread) or some such other figure. It's in lieu of an actual argument; lowest common denominator stuff.

Mark 12: 13-17

He's comparing Obama to Caesar. The right-wing fanatics do that in that country, they'll allude that the leader from the other side that they despise is akin to Hitler (he's already done in this thread) or some such other figure. It's in lieu of an actual argument; lowest common denominator stuff.

Actually if I'm looking for a historical example ,I'd go with Napoleon ripping the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII ;and crowning himself Emperor.

Actually if I'm looking for a historical example ,I'd go with Napolean ripping the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII ;and crowning himself Emperor.


Hi Tom,

Obama didn't write the constitution. He just has a bad habit of wanting to test it out all the time.

I find it strange that I have more faith in your constitution than you do.

Don't worry he'll probably lose out on this one if he doesn't back down.

Tut

The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=18093019172)

I have plenty of "faith" in the Constitution. It recognizes that humans are flawed ;and realizes that if you concentrate power into the hands of a few ,that tyranny follows.

But I think our system requires a vigilant populace because of those who would test it out. That populace is also required to love the liberty of our system more than the freebies a powerful centralized government can promise. I quote Alexis de Tocqueville
In my signature and believe it. Democracies have fallen before for such .Greece has gone full circle and we are not far behind .

NK you are free to worship the flying spaghetti monster if you choose.
Make sure you say 'Ramen' at the end of all your prayers .

I do! :-)

But I think our system requires a vigilant populace because of those who would test it out. That populace is also required to love the liberty of our system more than the freebies a powerful centralized government can promise. I quote Alexis de Tocqueville
in my signature and believe it. Democracies have fallen before for such .Greece has gone full circle and we are not far behind .

Hi Tom,

Sure, but in the end the ones who need to be most vigilant are those who have the final say in the judiciary. Without getting into a discussion about oligarchs, that's just the way your system works.

As far as I can see your Constitution caters very nicely for peoples religious beliefs. It does so as far as reasonably possible and 'strict scrutiny' will protect these freedoms.

But in the end religious freedom is not absolute and the Constitution recognizes this. If such freedoms were absolute then you would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Tut

Of course . In the name of religion I can't commit an honor killing or a human sacrifice. We should stipulate that no rights are absolute .
There are also great abuses of religious freedom already . Ex brought up drug use in "sacramental rites" . I am pretty sure that sacramental wine was not banned during prohibition. Mormons are wrongly (in my view) prohibitted from the practice bigamy . There are constant battles over the display of religious symbols in the public square.

But those are restrictions . I can't recall a case where the government compelled a religion to do something against it's canon.

The President stepped into it big time ,and I am almost positive there will be a backing out in the next week or so.

I can't recall a case where the government compelled a religion to do something against it's canon.They aren't - they are telling insurance companies to make certain services available. The person has to ASK for the services. Since it's against its canon then those services will never be asked for, problem solved.

Wrong answer . They are requiring the religious institution to pay for that service. You are aware that the employer pays a substantial part of the insurance coverage don't you ? The church is unwilling to be forced to pay for it because it is against it's doctrine .

The answer is very simple if the President wasn't being such a hard head .
Hawaii... his home state.. has the religious exemption . Then if the employee wants contraception coverage it cost them no more out of pocket to self insure that part of it than it would if the employers insurance policy was covering it.
Problem solved .

wrong answer . They are requiring the religious institution to pay for that service. Hello again, tom:

Nahhh... It's the RIGHT answer if you understand that a hospital is NOT a church...

Let me ask you this... In the guise of religious freedom, could a priest run for president and CLAIM the donations to his campaign are TAX DEDUCTIBLE??

excon

I see a lot of hypocrisy crying about something they already do, and have done for decades.

Single payer would solve the problem of being held hostage by a religion, or an employer. LOL, but if the federal government backs down, then you think they will go crying to the states who have this law in place??

Actually the law as is gives churches exemptions they DON'T have in some states now. But it illustrates how a catholic ayetollah shouldn't be in the White House at this time. Mabe its not good to tell religion what to do. But I think its wrong for religion to tell ME what to do! Your freedom stops where mine begin.

And they are going to pay insurance premiums any way, so what's the big deal? Isn't that between your doctor and you? Does/ should religion get between you and your doctor?

Does/ should religion get between you and your doctor?G'morning, tal:

We kind of kid around about that because we BELIEVE that that relationship is SOOO personal, and the privacy of it is SOOO ingrained in our American culture, that we scoff about any change in it becoming a reality...

Just like I did when that NUT in Florida said he was going to drug test welfare recipients. Well, he's DOING that.. Just YESTERDAY, these right wing fascists proposed, in the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, that we drug test welfare recipients NATIONWIDE!

DO NOT LET THESE NUTS GET THEIR HANDS ON THE LEVERS AND BUTTONS OF GOVERNMENT!! DON'T DO THAT!

excon

Ex the hospitals are part of their ministries .

Ex the hospitals are part of their ministries .Hello again, tom:

You can CALL a hospital a ministry, but it's a HOSPITAL. I thought you wingers didn't like PC.

If the feds have no business interfering in how a Catholic hospital operates, do you think they have the right to serve UN-INSPECTED food? Do they have the right to pay their janitors $2.50/hr? Can they hire CHILDREN to be the janitors?? Can they refuse to hire gay people?

excon

Fine shut them down then... But before you do that take a look at the phone directory and see how many hospitals shelters and other services around the country start with the name Saint...

I do get it... you and tal want every service provided in the country with the name 'Uncle Sam' because you think they are so good at it . This is just a stepping stone to that end .Tal admitted it with his single payer comment .

I do get it ... you and tal want every service provided in the country with the name 'Uncle Sam' because you think they are so good at it . This is just a stepping stone to that end .Tal admitted it with his single payer comment .Hello again, tom:

Single payer WOULD solve this problem.. That's just so..

But, I'm no lefty commie pinko. If the Catholic hospitals want to pick up their blocks and go home, I'm sure there's a PRIVATE company who'll buy them...

By the way, with single payer, private hospitals will STILL exist. You didn't buy the "government takeover", crap did you?? I think you DID.

excon

It's essentially a take over if they are violating their 1st amendment religious rights.. . and they are... and you know this mandate is a violation.

I hear as early as today Obama is going to back down.

Like I said and like the Gerson column I linked to affirmed, you aren't going to like it when the church gets forced out of their ministries. It's not just the hospitals which the church has provided for ages - it's homeless shelters, feeding centers, prison ministries, after school programs, day care, women's shelters, adoptions, orphanages, jobs programs, addiction recovery - you name it, the church pretty much does it.

WE ARE our brother's keeper unlike that deceptive power grabbing, freedom destroying BS Obama preaches.

Single payer WOULD solve this problem.. That's just so..

http://phumphries.com/forums/images/smilies/wavey.gif from socialist Canada! :-)

Anyone who wants single payer can go the Canada with my blessing .

Now that President Alinsky sort of caved on this, ( because he gets what he wants anyway with all of us have to pay for condums and abortion pills)... The fight to get rid of the mandate part of Obamacare is with SCOTUS . That in itself is unconstitutional ;but I have less confidence in that getting overturned than his attempt to trample on religious rights .

Some accommodation (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-revises-mandate-free-abortion-causing-drugs-for-women/), it changes nothing as far as the ethics of it are involved. Religious employers will still have to offer plans that cover exactly that which violates their conscience.


The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.

Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug

Whew, that makes me feel better. The good news is it eases Obama's mind:


“We are actually more comfortable having the insurance industry offer and market this to women than religious institutions,” the White House said on the conference call LifeNews listened to because they “understand how contraception works” and it “makes sense financially.”

I don't know how it makes sense financially and I appreciate the condescension in implying people of faith don't understand how contraception works.

When you lose your cherished right don't come whine to me if you failed to take a stand against this mandate.

Problem is ,I know my church... that's the type of cover they are looking for. Don't forget ;it was "Catholic Dems " who bought that Stupak bs when Obamacare was passed.

I'm wondering why the Catholic Church is still against contraception. The last thing needed in this 21st-century world is more people. Women want contraceptives and use them.

(Notice who's "upset"... )

I think tom addressed the "too many people" excuse, so how do you feel about sex-selection abortions?

Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region in Canada said (http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/planned-parenthood-director-supports-sex-selection-abortions):

“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [for having an abortion]...From a macro perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don't have any right to say that one person's reason is better or worse than another's.”

I don't think it's a good idea to be eliminating women either, do you?

P.S. Sounds to me like she is also admitting that glob of tissue is a person.

P.P.S. This is what I like about Rick Santorum...


“Are we going to believe, as our Founders did, that our rights don't come from the government, that they come from a much higher authority?” Santorum asked today. “There are those in the Oval Office who believe that's not the case, that rights do, in fact, come from the government, and they have gone around convincing the American people that they can give you rights. We see what happens when government gives you rights. When government gives you rights, government can take away those rights. When government gives you rights, they can coerce you in doing things in exercising the rights that they gave you.”

“As a result, government will own because you will have to pay tribute to Washington in order to get the care you need for your children,” he said.

... The fight to get rid of the mandate part of Obamacare is with SCOTUS . That in itself is unconstitutional ;but I have less confidence in that getting overturned than his attempt to trample on religious rights .

Hi Tom,

If it isn't overturned then it is constitutional. If it is overturned then it is unconstitutional. Isn't that how it works?


Tut

I think tom addressed the "too many people" excuse, so how do you feel about sex-selection abortions?
Contraception isn't abortion.

LOL, Mr prez came up with his solution, but of course the righties ain't happy, because they are never happy unless they are telling you what's right. Of course what you believe means squat to them because they are the only ones who are threatened with gloom and doom when it doesn't fit there idea of theocracy. These are the guys who want to shrink the government, but want it big enough to force you to go through there lock step idea of how the proper person should behave and give them the top rung of the ladder, by making YOU the second class citizen, there fore undeserving of a place next to them.

The right wing love is conditional on the do as I say do, and if you don't, I will make you. That's why they cannot compromise, or accept any other way but there way. That's why there is no good ideas being acted on, because only they have good ideas. That's why they can have a CPAC, and throw red meat at each other, because that's the way they roll. That's why they are always threatened by new concepts and ideas, that's why they give but at a price, and are lousy at debate and resolution.

It wasn't always that way, but even the great conservative statesmen of a decade ago find little support for being fair or accommodating for fear of being cast aside by the new wave of fringe right wingers who have taken over the mainstream conservative american thinking. That's the problem, as no one but the hard core righties can be in the club of one opinion fits all and the rest don't count.

That's why republicans who have sense are silently hiding way over on the sidelines, so they won't be drawn and quartered by there out there upfront fringe brethren, and sent packing as rinos who don't fit anymore in the party they have built and served.

So go ahead you righties, be afraid, be very afraid of the liberal ideas that will certainly move most of us forward without you. And while we celebrate being humans (you are invited I might add), you sit together with your chosen ones and tell scary stories to each other.

Let me know how that works for you, but I have no doubt you will. Good thing your vote is no bigger than mine. Or else the pope would be president, and pedophiles would be the congress. Now don't take it personally, my dim view of the theocracy you worship, because as I see it, you are one of many theocracies that hold the common sense of man hostage, and causes the sufferings of wars in the name of power, and influence, and control, that feeds your elevated sense of relevancy at the expense of those who you subjugate.

Just saying.

WG have I got some reading material for you!

Enjoy!!
Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)

The church has not deviated from this and I fully support their stand .They held firm on this despite the liberalization the church went through since Vatican II .

WG have I got some reading material for you!

Biologically, contraception is not abortion.

Who goes along with this teaching any longer?

What are the Catholics who are having pre-marital and extra-marital sex doing with this teaching?

They are acting against the doctrine of the church . Truth is not a fad subject to popular culture. .

Hi Tom,

If it isn't overturned then it is constitutional. If it is overturned then it is unconstitutional. Isn't that how it works?


Tut

Sorry ; you know my opinion of the judiciary . The last thing I'd think ;and there is absolutely no interpretation of the Constitution that suggest it ;that the court is the final arbiter... THE PEOPLE ARE ! I have documented too many cases where SCOTUS was just wrong . They put a constitutional stamp on Jim Crow laws even though a fair interpretation of the 13th and 14th amendments saw it was wrong. They put the Constitutional stamp on the internment of Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps . They put a constitutional stamp on the systematic murder of American babies. They told farmer Filburn that Congress had the power to prevent him from growing a legal crop to feed his chickens because it might affect the price of wheat . Then the government used that as a springboard for all types of abuse .

Any American who counts on the court to guarantee their rights will ultimately be disappointed .

I know what the Constitution says and the historical backround of the religious rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment . I don't need SCOTUS to tell me that the Imperial President is clearly doing an over-reach on his powers .

What gives him the right to say Insurance companies MUST provide FREE contraception ? It is certainly not in the legislation .

I know what he is doing. While this debate rages on ;his HHS is doing overtime writing code that will be impossible to sift through and reverse piecemeal . That is how these Levithians work. They come and go ;but the government is ever expanded in size and scope of power.

They are acting against the doctrine of the church . Truth is not a passing fad subject to popular culture. .
You want to have a new baby every two years or so?

Nope. The church does not find natural birth control methods (Natural family planning)immoral. Anyone who can count can prevent pregnancies. Face the facts ;the left wants this so there is less risk of disease from promiscuity . Why do you pretend it's anything else ?

Hello again, tom:

You can CALL a hospital a ministry, but it's a HOSPITAL. I thought you wingers didn't like PC.

If the feds have no business interfering in how a Catholic hospital operates, do you think they have the right to serve UN-INSPECTED food? Do they have the right to pay their janitors $2.50/hr? Can they hire CHILDREN to be the janitors??? Can they refuse to hire gay people??

excon

SCOUS held that a religious school is immune from an anti-discrimination law on First Amendment grounds, even if the statute itself didn't grant them an exemption. That was a 9-0 ruling. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC).

The church does not find natural birth control immoral. Anyone who can count can prevent pregnancies.
Clockwork menstrual cycles are not that common. The rhythm method does NOT work. And how regular are the cycles of all those teen girls having sex?

So in other words ;the church should be compelled ;in complete violation of the Constitution ,by the Almighty Government to pay for free contraception;a practice it teaches as morally wrong , for immoral behavior it opposes. I get it . I don't even know why I should pay for it.

Edit , I expect the Bishops will fight this on 1st Amendment grounds all the way to SCOTUS, if they lose ;may they shut down all Catholic hospitals and divest themselves of them .There's your landmark victory for women's health !

It does not matter what the facts are, I had a lady in my office today, telling me that we have to re-elect Obama because the Rep are going to take away women's health insurance, that no one could get a abortion and that birth control pills were going to be illegal if Obama did not get re-elected, she really believed that. That is the message the poor and the what I consider uneducated are getting and are being told. She had a local flyer that showed a hospital with a sign that said no women allowed.

It does not matter what the real truth is, it is a election ploy to scare people so they think they are victims and only the Dem can save them.

Fr Chuck I fully agree with you about the motive . They don't want to run on their record of managing the economy ;so they needed a wedge issue .
Their miscalculation is that Catholics represent a sizable voting block in swing states like Pa. They are playing that 'bitter clinger ' card again.

telling me we have to re-elect Obama because the Rep are going to take away women's health insurance, that no one could get a abortion and that birth control pills were going to be illegal if Obama did not get re-elected, she really believed that.
Was she correct?

Will abortions and birth control still be available to all women if a Republican is elected?

Sorry ; you know my opinion of the judiciary . The last thing I'd think ;and there is absolutely no interpretation of the Constitution that suggest it ;that the court is the final arbiter ... THE PEOPLE ARE ! I have documented too many cases where SCOTUS was just wrong . They put a constitutional stamp on Jim Crow laws even though a fair interpretation of the 13th and 14th amendments saw it was wrong. They put the Constitutional stamp on the internment of Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps . They put a constitutional stamp on the systematic murder of American babies. They told farmer Filburn that Congress had the power to prevent him from growing a legal crop to feed his chickens because it might affect the price of wheat . Then the government used that as a springboard for all types of abuse .

Any American who counts on the court to guarantee their rights will ultimately be disappointed .

I know what the Constitution says and the historical backround of the religious rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment . I don't need SCOTUS to tell me that the Imperial President is clearly doing an over-reach on his powers .

What gives him the right to say Insurance companies MUST provide FREE contraception ? It is certainly not in the legislation .

I know what he is doing. While this debate rages on ;his HHS is doing overtime writing code that will be impossible to sift through and reverse piecemeal . That is how these Levithians work. They come and go ;but the government is ever expanded in size and scope of power.


Hi Tom,

I pretty much agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately, there isn't an answer so I guess I will only be adding to the pessimism.

In the end a legal decision can't be what the people will. It isn't a legal decision, it's a popular decision. 99.9 percent of the population can be wrong and any one time.

I know you are a student of history because you cite historical examples. No doubt you are aware of Caesar and Cicero. Cicero was a constitutionalist and objected to the way Caesar distorted the constitution towards his own ends. From what I remember his letters to Caesar were an attempt to persuade him to do the right thing by Rome.

History is full of ambitious politicians. Pushing the limits is what politicians naturally do. This was always going to happen at some stage in the future. Whether it be Obama or someone else. Voting him out won't solve the problem. The door is slightly ajar.

Sorry about the pessimism.

Tut

The right joins the other holier than thou edicts of the Chinese, with their draconian social order, and the Iranians who think controlling behavior through strict theocracy is the way to govern, and it's a wonder an alliance hasn't been formed by now.

And since when can a church make public policy for everybody? The insurance companies are going to bridge the gap so the church is off the hook of supporting contraception so what's the beef? I don't think this will get to the courts myself because before today the mandate is the only issue that's even been taken up.

And I doubt seriously if the court will overturn this latest accommodation when there is so much precedent in state law already, or if the church itself will bring this to the judicial branch. Its just that the right has nothing else to holler about at this moment that they seize on what they see as a weakness by an ever growing popular president.

I mean if the bishops are satisfied, which we will find out about soon, will you be? Boner? The Santorum guy? Or will you continue to cry foul at everything this President tries to do. I really can't believe you guys worship the plutocrats and oligharchs as much as you do your precious religious hierarchy. Do you really think this country will go back to those golden Bush years, and a republican congress to back him up??

Surely you jest.

The insurance companies are going to bridge the gap so the church is off the hook of supporting contraception so what's the beef?

Anyone thinking this through knows that it still puts the church on the hook for funding something morally objectionable. A rational person sees a distinction without a difference in this not so clever accounting ploy .Do you really think the insurance company won't upcharge for this "FREE " contraception ? Who pays for it ?

I know the real issue here for the left because I've seen it for years. The left doesn't like religious liberty . The reason that it has not gone to SCOTUS yet is that they conveniently dodged from hearing cases decided by NY and California Catholics about their state laws. They will not be able to avoid this clear executive over reaching violation of the 1st Amendment's free exercise AND speech clause .Yeah that's right ! It violates free speech too because it mandates contraceptive councilling .

They will not be able to avoid this clear executive over reaching violation of the 1st Amendment's free exercise AND speech clause .Yeah that's right ! It violates free speech too because it mandates contraceptive councilling .

Hi Tom,

Unfortunately this is not the case. The Free Exercise Clause in historical terms has expended and contracted like a balloon. It depends on the social conditions of the time.

See for yourself...

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

I don't really see any reason why it won't continue this trend in the future.

Tut

I already brought up the poor and worngly decided case regarding the Mormon's right to exercise polygamy .I have also been clear in my opinion of the court in general . The fact that they dodged the cases brought up at the state level proves their inconsistency on this and other issues .(a panel of 3 Federal judges in the 9th circus court of appeals just decided that the people of California don't have the right to amend their constitution).

I have also argued on this op that this goes well beyond past cases where the government restricted activity to where now the state mandates that the church engage in activity of which it has moral objections .

I already brought up the poor and worngly decided case regarding the Mormon's right to exercise polygamy .I have also been clear in my opinion of the court in general . The fact that they dodged the cases brought up at the state level proves their inconsistency on this and other issues .(a panel of 3 Federal judges in the 9th circus court of appeals just decided that the people of California don't have the right to amend their constitution).


Hi again Tom,

Ok, I think it get it,

Are you saying that there is a clear-cut and unequivocal meaning to the Free Exercise Clause? Are you also saying that to date only a few decisions have embraced its true meaning? In other words, only a few judges have actually, 'got it right'.

Tut

The word shall leaves little wiggle room . Congress SHALL make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Not only does this violate the free exercise clause ;but by telling religion what it MUST do ;it breaches the establishment clause. Let's call it the Church of the Almighty Obama .

Further ;by mandating councilling on contraception ,it goes against the freedom of speech. That mandate doesn't say they can speak of their opposition to artificial contraception . Instead it is to council on the availability of artificial contraception.

the word shall leaves little wiggle room . Congress SHALL make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Not only does this violate the free exercise clause ;but by telling religion what it MUST do ;it breaches the establishment clause. Let's call it the Church of the Almighty Obama .

Further ;by mandating councilling on contraception ,it goes against the freedom of speech. That mandate doesn't say they can speak of their opposition to artificial contraception . Instead it is to council on the availability of artificial contraception.




OK, So I'll take that to be a yes to both my questions?

Glad that's established because as you can see from my conversation with WG , the broader issue that is being overlooked by this is the individuals right of religious exemption from paying for insurance ,or being required by law to obtain insurance that includes funding of so called "free " artificial contraception. Their right to have sex without natural consequences or as they like to call it ,free “reproductive services”(if there is such a right ) does not supercede my free exercise rights .

So it is not just mandates on insurance with carved out exemptions to religious institutions that is on the table. It goes further to the power of the government to require any individual to purchase medical insurance at all.

I mean if the bishops are satisfied, which we will find out about soon

Well here's your answer about the Bishops .
Dear Brother Bishops, As you have heard, today President Obama announced an upcoming change in the federal rule requiring most private health plans in the U.S. to include coverage for contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can induce abortions.
The Administration’s stated intent is to protect a broader class of religious employers from being forced to pay directly for objectionable coverage or to list it in the plans they offer their own employees. But it does not meet our standard of respecting the religious liberty and moral convictions of all stakeholders in the health coverage transaction. Therefore we remain committed to rigorous legislative guarantees of religious freedom.

We remain fully committed to the defense of our religious liberty and we strongly protest the violation of our freedom of religion that has not been addressed. We continue to work for the repeal of the mandate. We have grave reservations that the government is intruding in the definition of who is and who is not a religious employer. Upon further study we are very concerned that serious issues still remain and we have found numerous problems which we will raise in this letter.

We heard of the change this morning. President Obama called our USCCB president, Cardinal-Designate Dolan, to tell him that significant changes would be made in the final federal rule in an effort to accommodate our concerns about the religious freedom of our institutions. He outlined these changes, and said the Administration would be in further dialogue with religious organizations to work out the questions that remain unanswered. He said White House officials were willing to meet with us to discuss the issue further. Later in the morning, senior White House staff came to our Conference headquarters to do so and to answer questions. Shortly after the announcement by President Obama, Conference staff held a conference call with staff from Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, USA, Catholic Health Association, the University of Notre Dame and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

At present our understanding of the new final rule, at least part of which is expected to appear in the Federal Register next week, is as follows.

The Administration has indicated it is retaining the narrow, four-pronged exemption for “religious employers” such as churches and houses of worship. There is a serious concern that the four-pronged exemption would become a precedent for other regulations. However, it will also offer a new policy covering “non-exempt” religious organizations such as charities and hospitals. Our concern remains strong that the government is creating its own definitions of who is “religious enough” for full protection. Secular employers must provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs. Non-exempt religious organizations that object to these services may offer a health plan without them – that is, they do not list the services in their plan and they do not pay directly for them. But the insurance issuer selling this plan must offer to add these services for each of the organization’s employees free of charge (that is, no additional premium and no co-pay or out-of-pocket expenses). We are told that this is not to be seen as a “rider” – rather, these items will simply be covered, but without the employer endorsing or directly providing them. However, it remains unclear as to how insurers will be compensated for the cost of these items, with some commentators suggesting that such compensation will ultimately be derived from the premiums paid by the religious employer. This lack of clarity is a grave concern. These latter (religious but non-exempt) employers will have a year (up to August 2013) to work out final details of this, with a further rule to be issued by the Administration before the end of that period. The advantage is that we can take part in this dialogue; the down side is that we may not know the final actual details of some aspects of the policy until well into the New Year. All insurers without exception are covered by the mandate to provide these services without charge. At this point it does not seem that a religiously affiliated health plan (e.g. one run by a Catholic health system) can be offered to the general public and exclude the objectionable services, since most of the public is supposed to have these services included by their insurers automatically. We are presented with a serious dilemma regarding self-insured plans, where a religious organization is both employer and insurer, and regarding student health plans offered by religious colleges and universities. It appears that such plans will be required to offer the objectionable coverage. It seems clear there is no exemption for Catholic and other individuals who work for secular employers; for such individuals who own or operate a business; or for employers who have a moral (not religious) objection to some procedures such as the abortifacient drug Ella. This presents a grave moral problem that must be addressed, and it is unclear whether this combination of policies creates a mandate for contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs covering more of the U.S. population than originally proposed. The indication from the Administration that this process will be worked out into the coming year is of grave concern. Prolonging the process of the protection of religious liberty over multiple months is not beneficial or effective for the clear principle of religious liberty and freedom from coercion. In particular, the clear assertion of religious liberty is a matter of justice for our employees.

As you can see we have a great deal of work ahead of us. We need to study the proposal quickly, carefully and with all legitimate viewpoints represented in order to come to firmer conclusions. The Catholic Church has been the leading voice for religious freedom and moral conviction on this issue, and we want to commend all the bishops for the good work that has been done to bring this urgent issue to the very peak of public awareness. Our task is far from over. We remain fully determined to work strenuously with our many partners in service to the full exercise of the right to religious liberty in our country.

Our brother bishops permit us to repeat the principles that are guiding us:

First, there is the respect for religious liberty. No government has the right to intrude into the affairs of the Church, much less coerce, the Church faithful individuals to engage in or cooperate in any way with immoral practices.

Second, it is the place of the Church, not of government to define its religious identity and ministry.

Third, we continue to oppose the underlying policy of a government mandate for purchase or promotion of contraception, sterilization or abortion inducing drugs.

Thank you, brothers, for your commitment to work with everyone concerned about religious freedom in our society and to advance our principled goals. We will continue to keep you informed as we study this issue and learn more about this policy and our opportunities for its correction. We heartily welcome your observations and continued prayers and support.

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan Archbishop of New York President

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo Chairman Committee on Pro-Life Activities

Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl Chairman Committee on Doctrine

Most Reverend William E. Lori Chairman Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty

Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire Chairman Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development


Right on!!

I know the real issue here for the left because I've seen it for years. The left doesn't like religious liberty . Hello tom:

BS!

I'm as left as you get, and I'm DEMONSTRABLY for MORE liberty than you fellows are. Have been since the get go, and STILL am. WHO amongst us, creates LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for LIBERTY?? It's NOT me!!

This is really a simple matter of calling a church a church, and a hospital a hospital...

excon

So the churches right to advocate its position supersedes a persons right to make there own decisions? I don't think so, and think your idea of the counseling mandate is way off. Actually this comes down to the individual, and the insurance company. Now whether the costs are passed to the church is the free market practice that goes on with any service, or product you buy, and its not just the church who have this costs passed to them exclusively, but all the customers of the insurance company.

Just like churches must follow the law of the land, ie; labor laws, and minimum wage, working conditions, etc, they must also follow the rules and regulations of the industries they contract with. That includes the insurance companies. What churches don't and shouldn't be able to do is force people, catholic or NOT, to obey the tenants they put down, as in America, we still make our choices on the individual, free will basis. Religion should be voluntary, not mandated.

Hello tom:

BS!

I'm as left as you get, and I'm DEMONSTRABLY for MORE liberty than you fellows are. Have been since the get go, and STILL am. WHO amongst us, creates LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for LIBERTY??? It's NOT me!!!!

This is really a simple matter of calling a church a church, and a hospital a hospital...

excon

No it isn't, it's Caeser dictating what is and what isn't religious. I think you know that. If Obama redefines what qualifies as religious he feels he can avoid first amendment difficulties which is precisely what you're attempting to do, redefine religion.

The chutzpah in that is breathtaking. Preach your gospel of tolerance, diversity, inclusion, community service and then assault and insult us for doing just that. If a Catholic (or Baptist, Jewish or combinations thereof) institution serves the physical as opposed to the spiritual only needs of the community it no longer qualifies as 'religious' according to Obama. Yet that is the very essence of religiosity, to meet the physical needs of my brother without regard to race, faith, gender, age etc. even according to Obama's gospel.

This is the thanks we get? You are not going to like when the church gets out of the business of serving the community because putting our faith into practice no longer qualifies as a 'religious' activity. How utterly insulting and pathetically stupid.

he feels he can avoid first amendment difficulties which is precisely what you're attempting to do, redefine religion.Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, I think it's YOU who is trying to redefine the term HOSPITAL to mean a CHURCH! I ain't buying it.

You DO know that I "owned" (if anybody can own), a church. I KNOW about religious liberty and used it to MAXIMIZE my fortunes, and those of my clients. But, I didn't try to fool myself into thinking I was doing something religious.

Medicine is NOT religion.

excon

Yet that is the very essence of religiosity, to meet the physical needs of my brother...Nope, that's not what religiosity means at all. Here, try to find your made up definition: https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=define+religiosity&oq=define+religi&aq=2&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=418l4033l0l6479l13l10l0l0l0l0l267l1624l1.7. 2l10l0

Nk, I'm using Obama's definitions. He defined it, now he's penalizing the church for putting it into practice.

Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, I think it's YOU who is trying to redefine the term HOSPITAL to mean a CHURCH! I ain't buying it.

Not so at all, ex. I have said time and again that it is an extension, a ministry of the church meant to meet physical needs as we are commanded to do. What, now all of a sudden going out into the world and caring for others isn't really what we're supposed to be doing after all? You preach it, ever liberal on here has preached it over and over.

Every time abortion comes up someone inevitably argues "who is going to take care of all the unwanted children?" Who does? The church does.

You preach "feed the hungry". Who does? The church does.

You preach "shelter the homeless". Who does? The church does.

You preach "take care of the sick". Who does? The church does. The church built that hospital, the church funded that hospital, the church, staffed that hospital, the church purchased the equipment, the medicine and quite often the school that educated the doctors and nurses.

And now, unbelievably you tell us it's not really the church and you tie the very hands you've demanded serve the community for doing so, under the pretense of "women's health". Unbelievable. You are willing to entirely dismantle the first amendment, destroy the church's outreach to the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the abused to make us buy condoms and birth control pills. I'm sorry, but that's unbelievably insulting and stupid and I will not watch my first amendment rights go quietly.


You DO know that I "owned" (if anybody can own), a church. I KNOW about religious liberty and used it to MAXIMIZE my fortunes, and those of my clients. But, I didn't try to fool myself into thinking I was doing something religious.

I agree, you were taking, the church is giving. Tremendous difference.


Medicine is NOT religion.


And AGW is not science. What's your point? You don't believe religion has a place in medicine? You tell that to Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word who endured a great deal of hardship and rejection to bring medical care to my city (http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2012-02-10/incarnate-word-sisters-leave-legacy-service).

P.S. "Family planning" and "reproductive freedom" isn't medicine either. How convenient to change your terms to suit you.

This is the thanks we get? You are not going to like when the church gets out of the business of serving the community because putting our faith into practice no longer qualifies as a 'religious' activity. How utterly insulting and pathetically stupid.

Get off it, you are hardly a victim, and nobody has stopped you from doing any thing except discriminate against female health care access. Its bad enough you tell woman they have to have children and pain, and there is case for that, but you cannot dictate to the private sector if they want to offer the care that's particular to females.

It's a debate, so lets have it, because the church cannot impose its will on the people. Plain and simple and that's why we are having the debate in the first place. So don't play victim, because the real victims, are the ones whose freedoms the church takes away that are granted under the constitution.

What's pathetic and stupid is the church making public policy for others, especially those who are not part of the church. That's hypocritical to even think that conversion is the price for charity, because that's not charity. Nice try, but this isn't IRAN, and equal protection under the LAW is what the constitution is about. Not carve outs for the religious right to make the people who go to church follow their doctrines. That should be completely voluntary.

So do your charity, under the law, and may God reward you. And I thank you for your giving. But your charity gives you no right to come between me and my doctor, or me and MY God. And no church is the final arbiter of the relationship between ME and my God.

Only the right wing, and the pious would want to trample on the rights of others, or have an ulterior motivation for their charity. Or feel attacked because they realize that the law is for everybody to thrive and survive under.

So lets be clear, the churches stance on preventing equal access to health care for females is a loser. Its one thing to be against something, but quite another to stand in the way of it. It's a back door way to dictate policy based on doctrine. This whole argument is not about freedom, but control, and the idea the church has more freedom than people do! Now that's pathetic and stupid.

The thing is that most of the ministries in question, just keep there head down, and do what they do despite the obstacles and challenges they face. Those I admire greatly because they truly do great work.

The thing is that most of the ministries in question, just keep there head down, and do what they do despite the obstacles and challenges they face. Those I admire greatly because they truly do great work.

And they have been doing just that which is my point. Now you want them to bow to Caesar and violate their beliefs to do just that? No, this country was founded on religious freedom. Change that and it's no longer America. Your cherished rights are next.

Get off it, you are hardly a victim, and nobody has stopped you from doing any thing except discriminate against female health care access.

Show me where anyone is denied access to health care, they aren't.


Its bad enough you tell woman they have to have children and pain, and there is case for that, but you cannot dictate to the private sector if they want to offer the care that's particular to females.

As if it's one sided, you know it doesn't work that way. Give men the right to have a say in whether their baby is killed or not and then come talk to me.


It's a debate, so lets have it, because the church cannot impose its will on the people. Plain and simple and that's why we are having the debate in the first place. So don't play victim, because the real victims, are the ones whose freedoms the church takes away that are granted under the constitution.

So the government can grant rights or take them away and impose its will on the people? This country was founded on the basis that every man has "inalienable rights" granted by God, among these are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

What is the church imposing? Who is denied the right to walk into a store and buy a condom, they're still in restrooms for fifty cents in some places. Planned Parenthood gives them away, cities give them away. Who is denied access to birth control? When did birth control and abortifacients become a human right? Where is there any constitutional right to taxpayer funded birth control? Until you can answer these questions there is nothing to debate. Religious freedom is clearly enshrined in our constitution, none of those other things are even remotely referred to.


What's pathetic and stupid is the church making public policy for others, especially those who are not part of the church. That's hypocritical to even think that conversion is the price for charity, because that's not charity.

Straw man, I said the church provides the services I described without regard to one's religion, sex, race, etc. Requiring conversion is the antithesis of what the church believes and it is NOT required to receive our charity. Conversion is purely a matter of one's own freewill personal decision, period.


Nice try, but this isn't IRAN, and equal protection under the LAW is what the constitution is about. Not carve outs for the religious right to make the people who go to church follow their doctrines. That should be completely voluntary.

See above, irrelevant.


So do your charity, under the law, and may God reward you. And I thank you for your giving. But your charity gives you no right to come between me and my doctor, or me and MY God. And no church is the final arbiter of the relationship between ME and my God.

No one is coming between either in this. The only imposition is on the church to violate their beliefs.


Only the right wing, and the pious would want to trample on the rights of others, or have an ulterior motivation for their charity. Or feel attacked because they realize that the law is for everybody to thrive and survive under.

"An ulterior motivation for their charity"? Ba ha ha ha!! You can't be serious. The only one with an ulterior motive here is the Obama regime and that's to impose his social engineering agenda on this country and get reelected.


So lets be clear, the churches stance on preventing equal access to health care for females is a loser. Its one thing to be against something, but quite another to stand in the way of it. It's a back door way to dictate policy based on doctrine. This whole argument is not about freedom, but control, and the idea the church has more freedom than people do! Now that's pathetic and stupid.


Ridiculous. No one is standing in the way of a woman accessing birth control. You just want ME to pay for it in violation of my conscience, and that's just pathetic. If I don't have the freedom to avoid paying for the murder of innocent children then I have no freedom at all. I don't ask you to buy my gas to get to church, I'm not paying for your abortion. It's called CHOICE.

Dude you were already paying for it anyway. We all pay for whatever insurance covers as a collective through our premiums. That's the free market you righties love so well. That's not charity, you have to give them money for their services, and they get to make a profit, and pay taxes. That too is a choice.

And don't preach to the choir as I am against abortion also, but that's my choice. Contraception is not abortion. Since I am a guy who can't get pregnant, I would look stupid telling a female what to do with her choice wouldn't I? Or yours even.

Bottom line is that no one can dictate what a private company does because the laws does that. So don't buy insurance, but oh, you have to because you actually employ people don't you, just like a business. Hmm not bad, no taxes and can do what you want with the money.

Churches have to obey the law of the land. Like every citizen, corporation, or group. So don't worry you will still get what you want, but not at the expense of anyone else. Like the janitor that cleans the church, or the hospital. I know, I am just a heathen like Obama right?

Dude you were already paying for it anyway. We all pay for whatever insurance covers as a collective thru our premiums. Thats the free market you righties love so well. Thats not charity, you have to give them money for their services, and they get to make a profit, and pay taxes. That too is a choice.

And don't preach to the choir as I am against abortion also, but thats my choice. Contraception is not abortion. Since I am a guy who can't get pregnant, I would look stupid telling a female what to do with her choice wouldn't I? Or yours even.

Bottom line is that no one can dictate what a private company does because the laws does that. So don't buy insurance, but oh, you have to because you actually employ people don't you, just like a business. Hmm not bad, no taxes and can do what you want with the money.

Churches have to obey the law of the land. Like every citizen, corporation, or group. So don't worry you will still get what you want, but not at the expense of anyone else. Like the janitor that cleans the church, or the hospital. I know, I am just a heathen like Obama right?

Contraception is a choice. In most cases, engaging in sexual intercourse is a choice also. It is not health care. You are free to accept our charity or not, it's a choice. And when someone walks into the BSA ER, being Baptist or Catholic is not a prerequisite for treatment. But if they want an elective abortion they can go next door to Northwest Texas Hospital. BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience and murder children. Everyone wins. Why change that?

At the end of the day, we can all wrap ourselves in this quote:

"I don't want to overstate or understate our level of concern," said McQuade, the Catholic bishops' spokesperson. "We consider [birth control] an elective drug. Married women can practice periodic abstinence. Other women can abstain altogether. Not having sex doesn't make you sick." (quote easily found by Googling)

I hope males will remember that when she [always] says, "No, thanks. I don't want to get pregnant."

BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience ...
But yet they advocate birth control. Odd that.

Contraception is a choice. In most cases, engaging in sexual intercourse is a choice also. It is not health care. You are free to accept our charity or not, it's a choice. And when someone walks into the BSA ER, being Baptist or Catholic is not a prerequisite for treatment. But if they want an elective abortion they can go next door to Northwest Texas Hospital. BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience and murder children. Everyone wins. Why change that?

Nobody changes the services you render to those that needs it, quite to the contrary, only the way you treat your EMPLOYEES!! Nothing to do with patience or clients whatsoever.

Hello tom:

BS!

I'm as left as you get, and I'm DEMONSTRABLY for MORE liberty than you fellows are. Have been since the get go, and STILL am. WHO amongst us, creates LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for LIBERTY??? It's NOT me!!!!

This is really a simple matter of calling a church a church, and a hospital a hospital...

excon

OK ,I'll give y'all the benefit of the doubt and say that the President tried to strike a balance between religious liberty ,and so called "reproductive rights" ,and again blundered badly . He could easily step down from this decision and have religious exemptions so all he would have is the fight about unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare that SCOTUS will hear without having another one about his blatant violations of the 1st amendment.

Workers at Catholic institutions will not be denied contraception.The Church isn't stopping them from getting contraception. They won't be fired for taking it. The church just won't provide it . All they need to do is go to one of them Saint Margaret Sanger eugenics clinics to get it. The number of people affected is small . Having freely chosen their employer, they have a dubious case for grievance against institutions that choose not to offer contraception coverage.

But if he continues on this line then I have no choice but to conclude that he ,and those who support this position indeed do not like religious liberty .Because this violates a very basic fundamental tenent of religious freedom. If they can be forced to pay for the "right " of contraception ,what is to prevent them from being forced to pay for the "right " of snuffing out of the life of babies ?

what is to prevent them from being "forced " to pay for the "right " of snuffing out of the life of babies ?
Birth control pills don't do that. They keep the babies from happening in the first place. Like abstinence.

And I asked what is to prevent the government from mandating free abortions if they can consitutionally mandate free contraception ?

You found a quote on the web before. So here is another one easily found .


I accepted one branch of this philosophy, but eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands. It could not stand against the furious winds of economic pressure which had buffeted into partial or total helplessness a tremendous proportion of the human race. The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.


That was Margaret Sanger ,the hero of the women's rights movement .

They would rather you practice abstinence, than have YOUR doctor write a script for the pill. Remember the congress wanted them to have the RIGHT to let a female die if she showed up at their hospital with complications from a pregnancy, planned or not, wanted or NOT, that required them to take an action to terminate the pregnancy.

They also want to require females to get counseling, and ultra sound before having a LEGAL abortion, and the nuts think its justice to kill someone who performs these abortions. Now if we lived in the perfect world where a female can take some time off, and earn as much as a man, and needed less medical care on average than a man, I might be persuaded, but since that's not the case, it sure seems like discrimination to me, and historically, the government has always stepped in to stop blatant discrimination.

That's what we have here.

That was Margaret Sanger ,the hero of the women's rights movement .She most certainly is not!!!
Geez, if you need to make stuff up like this it means you have nothing left to argue.

And I asked what is to prevent the government from mandating free abortions if they can consitutionally mandate free contraception ?


Come on, there are no mandates for free abortion. All preventive medical procedures, exams, and medicines are free, with no co pays. That includes regular check ups. At least under my insurance.

Abortions are LEGAL, and hardly free unless you are poor, and then there is a sliding scale or subsidy from charitable organizations. Rich woman can get one in any state they can get to. Always have, always will. Its just the right is creative in limiting the choices of others, mostly the poor who cannot travel or afford insurance.

Mostly men, who think they can control the choice of others, because of there principles. That's the part that sucks to me because the ones hollering the loudest about life don't holler for the kids that are molested, but they sure settle those lawsuits to keep it quiet. How about mandating something for those that have suffered abuse, for FREE!

Hypocrisy?

Mostly men, who think they can control the choice of others
Others, which includes women. Why not also hand out clean burqas every morning after we shower or bathe?

Come on, there are no mandates for free abortion
Didn't say there was... I asked what's to prevent the mandate if they can mandate "free " contraceptives ? Answer nothing .

All preventive medical procedures, exams, and medicines are free, with no co pays.
I'll take your word that a check up is "free" under the insurance policy you pay for . Others have different terms . But am I reading correctly that you consider the distribution of contraceptive drugs ,and abortifacient drugs (which are also classified as contraceptive aids ),the same as a visit to a GP ? Amazing ! Tell me what other medical device or drug is "free " under your plan ? Bet you can't think of one .

I have 3 devices that cost me nothing out of pocket. They are mine now. But all my union brothers have the same benefits under our contract. Dental, and vision. Discount prescriptions. Don't you have the same thing? No union? Oh that's right, righties don't believe in unions. They are evil creations of liberal bleeding hearts.

I asked what's to prevent the mandate if they can mandate "free " contraceptives ?
Are these the same "they"s who will eventually take away our small arms if we let them ban AK-47s?

I have 3 devices that cost me nothing out of pocket. They are mine now. But all my union brothers have the same benefits under our contract. Dental, and vision. Discount prescriptions. Don't you have the same thing? No union? Oh thats right, righties don't believe in unions. They are evil creations of liberal bleeding hearts.

Oh I get it ! You think because it's called "free" that no one pays for it! No wonder you favor universal "free "care ! If contraception is such a necessary service that it should be "free " then don't you think there are many other services ,products more crucial that should also be "free" ? How about food,shelter and clothing ? Why shouldn't those be "free" too ?

Sad to inform you that in reality someone pays for all that "free"stuff. The church morally opposes being the one to pay for it . The church correctly believes that being forced to pay for it is a violation of their 1st amendment rights . I'm pretty sure that most of the church will realize that this sleigh of hand compromise where the church pays a 3rd party to cover it does not answer their concern.
Hope that clears it up for you . Calling it "free " doesn't make it so.

Are these the same "they"s who will eventually take away our small arms if we let them ban AK-47s?

Not really . It's more like the President's betrayal of Bart Stupak.The problem is not the contraception, it's the unconstitutional dictates. If there were no dictate, this would not have erupted into an issue. If birth control pills are "free", and help prevent cancer, why not require women to take them ? Once the Rubicon is crossed there is no telling where the line is drawn.

I already brought up the poor and worngly decided case regarding the Mormon's right to exercise polygamy .I have also been clear in my opinion of the court in general . The fact that they dodged the cases brought up at the state level proves their inconsistency on this and other issues .(a panel of 3 Federal judges in the 9th circus court of appeals just decided that the people of California don't have the right to amend their constitution).

I have also argued on this op that this goes well beyond past cases where the government restricted activity to where now the state mandates that the church engage in activity of which it has moral objections .


Tom, you are saying that you know better than the judges. There is a good chance that you do know better. In fact in some decisions handed down we could say that any idiot can see they have made a mistake.

But this is not the point. Flexibility is the issue when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause. Historically, the Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted differently depending on the time. Check out Wikipedia on this. Sometimes it has been interpreted in a broad fashion and sometimes its definition has been narrowed.

Are you ware wanting to say there is only one interpretation of this clause and that said interpretation apples at all times and in all places?
I hope not because this is an elitist position.

If you are then you would be saying that it makes no difference whether there are 2 people, 20 people, 200 people 200,000 thousand or 2 million people( whatever the number) who are privy to correct interpretation. We/they understand the 'real' meaning because it is based on, original intent, original meaning, semantics, or whatever.

This only amounts to saying the interpretation should reflect a particular sections of the political communities views.

Tut

Oh I get it ! You think because it's called "free" that no one pays for it !! No wonder you favor universal "free "care !



You don't favour it because, as someone else said, you believe in minimal services and minimal taxes.




If contraception is such a necessary service that it should be "free " then don't you think there are many other services ,products more crucial that should also be "free" ? How about food,shelter and clothing ? Why shouldn't those be "free" too ?



In a system where everybody pays, there a need to prioritize. Some services are more urgent.




Sad to inform you that in reality someone pays for all that "free"stuff.



In your country it is the so called 47% Is this way you object so much? It is possible to learn and adopt ideas from other countries?




The church morally opposes being the one to pay for it . The church correctly believes that being forced to pay for it is a violation of their 1st amendment rights . I'm pretty sure that most of the church will realize that this sleigh of hand compromise where the church pays a 3rd party to cover it does not answer their concern.



I'm sure your are right, It doesn't address their concerns. If you believe something violates your rights then it it does.




Hope that clears it up for you . Calling it "free " doesn't make it so.

True, but we can always make it equitable.

Tut

If you are then you would be saying that it makes no difference whether there are 2 people, 20 people, 200 people 200,000 thousand or 2 million people( whatever the number) who are privy to correct interpretation. We/they understand the 'real' meaning because it is based on, original intent, original meaning, semantics, or whatever

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Tom. I assume you are saying this because you think the constitution has some idealized meaning that can be accessed by 'right minded' people. Are you sure you are happy with that?

I am also sure you are saying that in recent history SCOTUS judges have fallen well short of a 'true' understanding of the constitution. Isn't this political idealism at its worst?

I am talking Alice in Wonderland while you are talking Plato's ,"The Republic". Not much of a choice is it?

Tut

I am not constructing Plato's Republic as all. Egalitarian utopias are the relm of the left . On this posting I have mentioned Margaret Sanger a couple times. I would say her eugenics is her prescription to the Plato dilemna of the intermingling of the classes .
“All the wisdom and education of your rulers will not attain; the laws which regulate them will not be discovered by an intelligence which is alloyed with sense, but will escape them, and they will bring children into the world when they ought not”


A modern-day Plato would have no need to countenance abortion or infanticide: vasectomy and the pill would ensure that there were no unwanted results of the guardians disporting themselves. Artificial insemination would enable the bureau of eugenics to select for desirable qualities of character and intellect without resort to deception.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/libeqsor/platsex.html


In 'Republic', Plato is openly hostile to individualism, which he believes destructive of the collective good . The individual is indentured to the state. Justice is synonymous with the well-being of the City. (or as SCOTUS likes to argue often... "the compelling interest of the state ")The classes exist to work as a harmonious collective.
To his credit ,Plato created Republic and then realized the society he envisioned was an unworkable utopian model.

Keep going because there are indeed great minds that the philosophical foundation of theAmerican Republic was based on. But no, Plato's Republic wasn't one of them .But I will give you this... Obama envisions himself one of Plato's philosopher kings.

I know you would love to think that Tom, but as you say reality trumps fantasy. While this started as an intrusion into religion having to pay for something against there principles, when the president said okay, insurance companies will pay for it. That should have been the end of it, right? Wrong! Now its an accounting trick. (Even though the oligarchy of the right loves accounting tricks), and it still being passed on to the church. But isn't that what the free market is all about? Don't they pass the cost of doing business onto the consumer, whatever it is?

Well that's how the free market (insurance companies specifically) makes money. That's why they can throw a million people off the rolls, and charge whose left a higher premium.

I thought the right wanted the private sector to call the shots? To set prices on the time honored profit directed business model?

I guess free doesn't meet the bottom line at the right place, and your concept of free is limited by your very narrow perspective of ALL the people. No matter the socio-economic condition of the individual. I think that's the true measure of a healthy nation.

But being a progressive independent (liberal), I can see why we have a great conflict of ideas. I just ain't going for that voluntary slave idea of stagnation, or regression, or the my way or the highway mentality.

Others, which includes women. Why not also hand out clean burqas every morning after we shower or bathe?

... and define pregnancy as a preventable disease .Maybe we should prepare an immunization program.

Now its an accounting trick... and it still being passed on to the church.
Correct.

But isn't that what the free market is all about? Don't they pass the cost of doing business onto the consumer, whatever it is?
As far as I can tell ,the free market can't compel anyone to buy their product. Evidently the government has assumed that power (unless the unconstitutionaal law is either overturned or repealed ).

And to continue in the 'Through the Looking Glass' theme; you would have us believe that a government that mandates that citizens buy products they don't wish to buy, and to pay for services that violate their deeply held religious beliefs is not authoritarian... but institutions that oppose the mandates are?

They have a voluntary immunization program already, the church and the righties have to get out of the way. They have been doing it for centuries, but modern science has made it safer.


As far as I can tell ,the free market can't compel anyone to buy their product. Evidently the government has assumed that power (unless the unconstitutionaal law is either overturned or repealed ).

The seat belt law is mandatory, so is car inssurance. Should we repeal those too? Why aren't they unconstitutional?


And to continue in the 'Through the Looking Glass' theme; you would have us believe that a government that mandates that citizens buy products they don't wish to buy, and to pay for services that violate their deeply held religious beliefs is not authoritarian... but institutions that oppose the mandates are?

OMG, the same way Muslims cannot practice their deeply held SHARIA LAW, because it violates OUR laws, Is the same way Catholics cannot violate the LAWS of the LAND! The same way polygamy is illegal, is the same way denying proper health insurance is illegal.

These are the constitutional principle that stop religions from putting there beliefs on others. That includes mine, yours, and theirs! If they cannot practice within the law, what's the point?

That's why the present "accommodation" works well as is, and most practising catholics agree. And in practical terms its just as good as most states have, and better than some.

The seat belt law is mandatory, so is car inssurance. Should we repeal those too? Why aren't they unconstitutional?


I've addressed this many times before.

1. auto insurance is a STATE and not a FEDERAL law .
2. No one is forcing you to own a car . Obamacare forces us to purchase medical insurance just because we exist.
3. The only part of auto insurance that is mandatory is the liability coverage for doing damage to other persons and /or their property . The comprehensive coverage is optional .

4.It is not morally objectionable to religious institutions to have auto coverage like the mandate to provide/pay for "free" contraception.

Hope that clears it up for you .

I am not constructing Plato's Republic as all. Egalitarian utopias are the relm of the left . On this posting I have mentioned Margaret Sanger a couple times. I would say her eugenics is her prescription to the Plato dilemna of the intermingling of the classes .
“All the wisdom and education of your rulers will not attain; the laws which regulate them will not be discovered by an intelligence which is alloyed with sense, but will escape them, and they will bring children into the world when they ought not”


Plato's Philosophy of Sex (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/libeqsor/platsex.html)


In 'Republic', Plato is openly hostile to individualism, which he believes destructive of the collective good . The individual is indentured to the state. Justice is synonymous with the well-being of the City. (or as SCOTUS likes to argue often ..."the compelling interest of the state ")The classes exist to work as a harmonious collective.
To his credit ,Plato created Republic and then realized the society he envisioned was an unworkable utopian model.

Keep going because there are indeed great minds that the philosophical foundation of theAmerican Republic was based on. But no, Plato's Republic wasn't one of them .But I will give you this .... Obama envisions himself one of Plato's philosopher kings.


Hi Tom,

A couple of points for clarification.

Firstly, utopian theories exist both at the left and right of politics.

Secondly, I didn't say you were constructing Plato's Republic.

Thirdly, I didn't say the American Republic was based on it.

You made this up.


I am very familiar with the great minds the philosophical foundation of the American Republic was based on. I hold them in high esteem. My comments are not a criticism of these minds.

In exactly the same way my comments are not related to eugenics; nor is there any suggestion you favoured Plato in terms of psychology and/or biology. In other words, I was not trying to answers Plato's question. "What makes a healthy society and a healthy individual?" You jumped to this conclusion.

The comment was in relation to Plato's question, "Who should rule?" It would require going into detail here about 'original intent' but this would lead off topic.

I hope this clears it up.

Tut

Who should rule ? Locke basically said that ,humans cannot exist without freedom from absolute and arbitrary power;and no one can give more power than he has himself, nor can he assume the same over another.

This is in opposition to our philosopher king's benevolent Hobbesian vision.

Hello again:

I'm sorry. I'd LIKE to participate in this conversation, but it's beyond me.. I'm not a philosopher type.

What I want to know, is this... E.J. Dionne, a lib, a Catholic, and AGAINST what the pres did, said that hospitals SHOULD be treated like church's because the good works they do are "inspired" by the church...

Really?? Inspiration should be the standard for tax relief?? If my BUSINESS is "inspired" by my religion, can I call IT a church?? Why not?

excon

But yet they advocate birth control. Odd that.

I already pointed out that info was from ADAM (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/encyclopedia.html), which is provided by the government. I can guarantee that BSA does not do abortion.

Nobody changes the services you render to those that needs it, quite to the contrary, only the way you treat your EMPLOYEES!!! Nothing to do with patience or clients whatsoever.

DUDE! You're the one that alleged the church had ulterior motives to provide charity, stop changing the subject.

Just so you know, I always think the people on the ground, who do the actual work (workers), are the best folks in the world, bar none. Its mostly administrative executive types that are full of crap. That's just me.

And no way do I have faith in those who hide and protect pedophiles. NO WAY!!

Have I made myself clear?

No doubt in my mind at all that the catholic leadership has a motive or else why wouldn't they be up in arms in 34 states that have laws (more states are doing it too!), that do exactly what the Prez has done??

She most certainly is not!!!
Geez, if you need to make stuff up like this it means you have nothing left to argue.

Whatever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger).


Long after her death, Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women's rights. Sanger's story has been the subject of several biographies, including an award-winning biography published in 1970 by David Kennedy, and is also the subject of several films, including Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story.[59] Sanger's writings are curated by two universities: New York University's history department maintains the Margaret Sanger Papers Project,[60] and Smith College's Sophia Smith Collection maintains the Margaret Sanger Papers collection.[61]

Sanger has been recognized with many important honors. In 1957, the American Humanist Association named her Humanist of the Year. Government authorities and other institutions have memorialized Sanger by dedicating several landmarks in her name, including a residential building on the Stony Brook University campus, a room in Wellesley College's library,[62] and Margaret Sanger Square in New York City's Greenwich Village.[63] In 1993, the Margaret Sanger Clinic — where she provided birth control services in New York in the mid twentieth century — was designated as a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service.[64] In 1966, Planned Parenthood began issuing its Margaret Sanger Awards annually to honor "individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights."[65]

Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion frequently condemn Sanger by questioning her fitness as a mother and criticizing her views on race, abortion, and eugenics.[66][67][note 8] In spite of such attacks, Sanger continues to be regarded as an icon for the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement.

Sounds like she's a hero to the women's rights crowd to me.

Whatever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger).



Sounds like she's a hero to the women's rights crowd to me.

All you have to do is read Sec State Clintoon's address when she accepted the Margarent Sanger award from Planned Parenthood to see the veneration.
Remarks at Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala (http://newsblaze.com/story/20090328122708stat.nb/topstory.html)

Planned Parenthood ≠ women's rights movement

All you have to do is read Sec State Clintoon's address when she accepted the Margarent Sanger award from Planned Parenthood to see the veneration.
Remarks at Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala (http://newsblaze.com/story/20090328122708stat.nb/topstory.html)

High praise for the women's rights icon indeed.

I already pointed out that info was from ADAM, which is provided by the government. I can guarantee that BSA does not do abortion.I'll call your BS on this. I run a larger website than the BSA one and I know every page on that site, nothing goes on that isn't approved. BSA hosts the info on their website because they condone it or else it wouldn't be there.

High praise for the women's rights icon indeed.
Hehe, sniffing tom's butt again so you guys can prop each other's posts? I guess you need to do that for each other since you're the only ones of the same opinion.

I'll call your BS on this. I run a larger website than the BSA one and I know every page on that site, nothing goes on that isn't approved. BSA hosts the info on their website because they condone it or else it wouldn't be there.

Do you know how to look at the right side of anything, including your own link (http://www.bsahs.org/body_wellness.cfm?xyzpdqabc=0&id=371&action=detail&AEProductID=Adam2004_10&AEArticleID=000091&AEArticleType=default)? Look to the right and you'll see the "ADAM Navigator". You ought to know better by now than to challenge my facts.

Hehe, sniffing tom's butt again so you guys can prop each other's posts? I guess you need to do that for each other since you're the only ones of the same opinion.

Can you be any more juvenile?

Do you know how to look at the right side of anything, ....

Wow. I like how you cropped out any reference to the fact that it's on the BSA website:

39101

Can you be any more juvenile?I was using a dog analogy since you are both dog people and are prone to using analogies. I guess that fell flat.

Wow. I like how you cropped out any reference to the fact that it's on the BSA website:

39101

And that changes the fact that I was right how? It doesn't, so give it up.

I was using a dog analogy since you are both dog people and are prone to using analogies. I guess that fell flat.

Not playing your stupid games any more, NK.

So showing the content on their website makes you think that they don't condone it? Interesting world of denial. :D
This is YOUR church offering birth control advice for women, even without Obama the dictator telling them to do it (that page was last update 2 years ago). Weird eh?

So showing the content on their website makes you think that they don't condone it? Interesting world of denial. :D
This is YOUR church offering birth control advice for women, even without Obama the dictator telling them to do it (that page was last update 2 years ago). Weird eh?

I've contacted their administration, I can't wait to here their response. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that I was right. That content is provided by ADAM which is provided by the NIH. You know as well as I do that no one takes responsibility for outside content.

You know as well as I do that no one takes responsibility for outside content.Nah, you don't anything about delivering web content, that's my biz. That page only gets on there if someone adds it. Let us know the response you get from the admin; who did you contact?

Nah, you don't anything about delivering web content, that's my biz. That page only gets on there if someone adds it. Let us know the response you get from the admin; who did you contact?

Dude, don't tell me what I know.

Ex I saw EJ on 'Meet the Press'. He was right in his opposition of the original requirement ;and is now wrong in that he is satisfied with the sleigh of hand compromise.

Where he thinks the works are "inspired " by the Church ;in fact ,the ministries are a part of the church. That at least is the Church position;a position I agree with . (and I might add that the President doesn't mind quoting the gospel when it suits his agenda) .

That of course will be the contention that needs to be resolved regarding the 1st amendment issues..

Eventually the idea that the national government can compel anyone to purchase a product or service under the commerce clause ;or the phony compelling state's interest justification;just because they exist ,will be heard in court too.. I cannot predict the outcome of either case.

I doubt it gets to the courts, at least a higher on as I doubt the catholics will carry it that far. I men most of the catholics are in opposition to the bishops on this matter, and since they aren't obeying them now, what makes you think they will later? So despite opinions, doctrines, and dogma, from the bishops won't the results be the same? Contraception under the law for females.

What, will they sue the states too?? Come on the right wing wants to repeal Obama care, got that! But the Bishops want Obama care, with there own right to decide who gets what because I haven't seen ONE bishop blast any catholic institution, or even stop the practice of providing contraceptives at any of its charities, hospitals, or ministries. Have YOU??

If it was as big a deal as they said, wouldn't they at least police there own? Or practice what they preach at least? Then they would be credible.

I think you guys just like to holler BOOGEY MAN!!

What, you want the Catholic church to be a democracy? Why should the church bow to the whims of its members? Catholic doctrine is not up for a vote.

So showing the content on their website makes you think that they don't condone it? Interesting world of denial. :D
This is YOUR church offering birth control advice for women, even without Obama the dictator telling them to do it (that page was last update 2 years ago). Weird eh?

I received my reply, names are omitted for privacy reasons but feel free to contact them (http://www.bsahs.org/body.cfm?id=16) yourself if you don't believe me.


Mr. S****,

We do not provide the morning after pill and we do not perform abortions at BSA. There are cases where, if a mothers' life is in imminent danger through the birthing process, a decision may need to be made by the family and physician but these instances are extremely rare and unique. The ADAM site is a general comprehensive database library that we source through our web developer and gives information on numerous topics of which BSA does not make any claims as to representing our views and practices. That being said, in the "Terms of Use" for the ADAM health library we are going to insert stronger language regarding the fact that content on the site does not in any way represent the views/opinions of BSA.

Appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

Told you so.

I doubt it gets to the courts, at least a higher on as I doubt the catholics will carry it that far.

It will be heard as far as the Court of Appeals. Challenges by Catholic charities against state mandates did not make it to SCOTUS ;but we are in new territory here with a national mandate.


I men most of the catholics are in opposition to the bishops on this matter, and since they aren't obeying them now, what makes you think they will later?So despite opinions, doctrines, and dogma, from the bishops won't the results be the same?

As Steve said, the laity does not make the rules. If Catholics are violating it then they are exercising their free will outside of the teachings of Catholic doctrine .
Further it is the Catholic church that will pay for this ""free " contraception (directly or indirectly... haven't heard yet how the Obots are going to handle the self insured religious institutions... Won't they be paying directly ? )

QUOTE by tomder55;
It will be heard as far as the Court of Appeals. Challenges by Catholic charities against state mandates did not make it to SCOTUS ;but we are in new territory here with a national mandate.

We have to wait and see how this new territory is approached. But lets remember that the catholic church was pushing for Obama Care in the first place, and still do.


As Steve said, the laity does not make the rules. If Catholics are violating it then they are exercising their free will outside of the teachings of Catholic doctrine .

That's a good point to consider. So the ministries outside the ruling body of the catholic church can, and do offer the full range of woman's health needs, including contraceptions, AND abortions, voluntarily. Interesting that catholics allow this for themselves, and protest others for doing it. Like in Kansas. I wonder why they protest Planned Parenthood, and NOT the catholic hospitals that DO perform termination, and sterilization?


Further it is the Catholic church that will pay for this ""free " contraception (directly or indirectly... haven't heard yet how the Obots are going to handle the self insured religious institutions... Won't they be paying directly ? )

They will pay the premiums for the insurance, as ALL employers are required to do. As ALL religions are required to do by law. Now how that effects self insuring institutions is something I am still researching but it seems that although it's a money saver, it also assumes the risk of paying for contingencies outside what the policy itself calls for.

How to Cut Insurance Costs by Self-Insuring (http://personalinsure.about.com/od/health/a/aa121205a.htm)

Right now, I can only compare it to supplemental insurance that many employers, and private citizens use to close coverage gaps but as I say, not sure how that works for a church providing its own policies.

Self-funded health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-funded_health_care)

LOL, I can see the consternation of the church, I really can, many of us are very confused dealing with our own insurance companies. Most health care providers have a qualified staff that knows how to not just deal with the insurance companies, but the patients too.

I have to apologize for using the word free though, my bad, its called no out of pocket expenses.

I've pretty much said everything I can on this issue . We'll have to see how it plays out now.

I'll leave with the words of what most here consider one of the premiere defenders of the US Constitution in the US Congress . I'll post his whole observation without edit .


Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.

Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.

Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?

In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.

So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.

But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.

Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.

The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.

Rep Ron Paul
The Latest Obamacare Overreach (http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1949:the-latest-obamacare-overreach&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69)

I can see nothing else for it religious organisations must employ only those people who adhere to their principles and practices

This is the guy who also said anyone without health insurance he would let die. And its DR. Ron Paul.

Who should rule ? Locke basically said that ,humans cannot exist without freedom from absolute and arbitrary power;and no one can give more power than he has himself, nor can he assume the same over another.

This is in opposition to our philosopher king's benevolent Hobbesian vision.


Hi Tom,

No, this is not Lock's answer to who should rule. If you read the rest of Lock's Second Treatise you will realize that Lock is not only advocating negative liberty. In modern terms he is balancing out negative liberty with positive liberty ( although he doesn't actually use the terms positive and negative).

Sure negative liberty, is all about the individual agent agents right to act in a certain way. However this is contrasted to the right of the individual to form a collective. He then goes on to argue for a judiciary which will administer the law. An executive who can enforce the law and lastly a legislature.

The opposition to Hobbes is an opposition based on what Locke believed to be Hobbes' misunderstanding of what it means to be in 'a state of nature'

Tut

Hi Tom,

No, this is not Lock's answer to who should rule. If you read the rest of Lock's Second Treatise you will realize that Lock is not only advocating negative liberty. In modern terms he is balancing out negative liberty with positive liberty ( although he doesn't actually use the terms positive and negative).

Sure negative liberty, is all about the individual agent agents right to act in a certain way. However this is contrasted to the right of the individual to form a collective. He then goes on to argue for a judiciary which will administer the law. An executive who can enforce the law and lastly a legislature.

The opposition to Hobbes is an opposition based on what Locke believed to be Hobbes' misunderstanding of what it means to be in 'a state of nature'

Tut

Right... but our founders gave more power to the legislative branch (all you need to do is compare the length of the articles of the constitution dealing with the branches .Article One is clearly the longest. )

And my argument is not based on Locke alone. In fact ;part of the reason I'm not sure SCOTUS will overturn the mandate provisions based on the 1st Amendment religious clauses is that Locke was one who gave an argument that EX has been making... that there is a divide between the church's role and the state's in the temporal world that favors the state .

But I doubt that Locke would agree that the state has so much power as to madate actions by the church that violates their core beliefs.

I can see nothing else for it religious organisations must employ only those people who adhere to their principles and practicesHello clete:

OR, the workers who AREN'T Catholic will have the Catholic religion FORCED upon them... Tell me HOW that's religious freedom??

excon

Hello clete:

OR, the workers who AREN'T Catholic will have the Catholic religion FORCED upon them.... Tell me HOW that's religious freedom???

excon

You find me one instance of that and then we can talk.

You find me one instance of that and then we can talk.Hello again, Steve:

Isn't the whole thread ABOUT the Catholic church REFUSING to provide insurance that will cover contraceptives?? Their employee's CAN'T get them BECAUSE the religious beliefs of the church PREVENT it...

If that's NOT the Catholic religion being FORCED down the throats of their NON Catholic employees, then I don't know what is..

excon

Oh come on, when did you become such a drama queen? It's simple, they don't have to work there and they can buy all the contraceptives they want. There is no policy in place forbidding employees from using contraceptives. NOT Paying for birth control pills is not forcing your religion down someone's throat.

When the church employs private companies that are regulated by law, they have to obey. If they employ private citizens, as workers, they must comply with the labor laws. Insurances must obey the LAW, it's that simple. So it seems to me that the solution between conscience and law is to not employ insurance companies OR private citizens. Indeed the decision is the churches, to modify their religion to comply with the law, or take the steps to be exempt from it.

I gave my examples before of how other religions, Mormons, and Muslims, being kept from following THEIR religion to the letter of THEIR convictions, so expect ALL religions to respect the LAWS of the land. Now you can be against a mandate to what's allowable under the LAW, but the mandate that has been taken up by the bishops clearly gives them all the choices they need to both practice freely under the LAW, for the good of ALL the citizens.

Now since there is an exemption that lets them off the hook, for PAYING for things they don't believe in, then the only argument is with dealing with private companies that do offer things they preach against. They won't have to stop that, nor stop their charity, nor stop the rights of others from having access to health care. Some will choose to do what the church tells them, some will not. and that's no

We all win, and are not harmed so its between the church and insurance companies how they get there. Sorry but no way do I see the rights of the church being more important than my rights, even if I sweep the halls for pay, maintain church property, or do the books. I mean the church purchases all kinds of services for private people and pay for those services, be it practicing good Catholics or a Muslim small business man right? Insurance is no different, and the only things that limit the practice of its religion by the church is the church itself when it makes a choice to be an employer or insurance company. Both things regulated by LAW!!

Tal, if the church is forced in any way to be a party to furnishing birth control or abortifacients, we lose religious freedom. Some churches are self-insured, where is their escape clause?

And the bigger issue anyway is what I pointed out earlier (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-18.html#post3026081), this gives the federal government the power to define what constitutes a ministry and what doesn't.

But Steve, that's my point, they are already a party to firnishing birth control, and abortifacients. Have been for decades. Under state law. Look it up, its true, now it's the same under federal law, but nothing has changed at all except federal law.

The state laws has been to court over this, and was upheld. The federal law is the same, and even more favorable for the churches, but changes nothing that's been done over the last 20 years.

Seems your arguments is based more on your perception than reality. And I don't agree that the government is defining a ministry, just saying if you act like a private company, you will be treated like one. You seem to think the church can do business any way they want in the name of their religion. They cannot, that's why all ministries, and businesses, and companies have to be clear as to what they are and what they are taxed, and regulated by.

Or else the rights of the individual will mean nothing, if indeed there is a law for you, that doesn't apply to me. No church, religion, or company in this country is above the LAW! Or shouldn't be. The government doesn't define a ministry, the ministry defines itself, but all actions in the public sector be they charity, church, non profit, or for profit MUST be defined for tax purpose.

You can always do what some have done, moved to their own land, made their own rules, and enforce them themselves. Sorry Steve, but the church has already cosen the path they take, preach, but not prosecute, and forgive those who are flawed. They have choices, and options, and the opportunity to practice what they believe without screwing those that don't.

Maybe its not as perfect as we want, but it's the way it is, and that's equal, and fair treatment under the LAW! That's the goal at least.

Tal, I'll have to find the text again but it does define what counts as religious and what doesn't. It's basically if doesn't specifically matters of faith/doctrine they don't consider it religious. That's the whole point of the post I just linked, ministry is helping people. If helping people is no longer a religious activity then the church is effectively done in the feds eyes.

this gives the federal government the power to define what constitutes a ministry and what doesn't.Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... The APPLICATION for tax exempt status GAVE them that power a long long time ago.

excon

They should get the same exemption to opt out of Obamacare that the unions and Obama cronies gets one would think.

Look ;what is really scary about this is that the Obamacare law is chock full of language that gives power and authority to the head of HHS to make similar type decisions. We isn't seen nothing yet. There is no doubt that if they get away with this then mandatory coverage for "free " abortion won't be far behind . If they can force a Catholic Hospital to give coverage for something morally objectionable then what's to stop them from mandating that they perform a medical procedure . What ? You think that can't happen ? They already force Pharmacists to sell abortifacients or lose the privilege of being licensed to do their job.

Tal ,I don't care if all 50 states mandate it (or is it 57 states ) . This is Federal Law and the Constitution is clear about Federal law .


Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)