[speechlesstx]

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?

[NeedKarma]

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:

[NeedKarma]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[talaniman]

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!!

[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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 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.

[tomder55]

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 ? )

[talaniman]

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

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

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.

[tomder55]

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

[paraclete]

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

[talaniman]

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

[TUT317]

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

[tomder55]

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.