 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
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?
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 . |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by tomder55
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 . |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Medicine is NOT religion.
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.
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by talaniman
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by talaniman
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 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.
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.
|
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Should churches apply for 501c3?
[ 2 Answers ]
LBJ's Conspiracy To Silence the Churches of America Most churches in America have organized as "incorporated 501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in...
Protestant Churches
[ 3 Answers ]
Hey guys I need help on my history homework. Can Someone give me 5 facts about a 16th century protestant church?? My Homework is due tomorrow so I need an answer fairly quickly. Miley x x x
View more questions Search
|
