[NeedKarma]

D) I addressed NKs wild goose chase a month ago.

The weird thing about that is that I never brought up abortions - you did. I was talking about birth control. I'm not sure how you hijacked that conversation, made it about abortion, then attributed some kind of "win" to yourself. Oh well.

[NeedKarma]

P.S. Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program

Wow, one should scroll down and read the comments section about that item.

[excon]

P.S. Same-sex 'marriage' law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program

Hello again, Steve:

I'd use different words.. Catholic Charities CHOOSE to close their doors, and let 1,000's go WITHOUT charitable services, because they won't accept change...

Look. I'm not a Catholic. I DON'T know Catholic history, so I'm making it all up... In the beginning, I'm absolutely CERTAIN that Catholic charities didn't start with the blessings of the rulers of the day. As a matter of fact, if the ruling class thought what the Catholic charities were doing was a GOOD thing, they would have been doing it themselves... I'm sure surviving through the century's as a religious charity can't be easy. But the Catholic church did it for generations, and in the face of zillions of iterations of the law...

So, I'm having a hard time believing that THIS particular iteration of the law is FORCING them to close their doors.. Yup, a REAL hard time. I don't think Jesus would abandon the poor. I think he'd MINISTER to the needy in SPITE of the laws of the day.

But, what do I know about Christianity?

excon

[speechlesstx]

The weird thing about that is that I never brought up abortions - you did. I was talking about birth control. I'm not sure how you hijacked that conversation, made it about abortion, then attributed some kind of "win" to yourself. Oh well.

No sir, I made the distinction between the hospital and the content provider. BSA verified my argument. That equals a win for me.

[speechlesstx]

I'd use different words.. Catholic Charities CHOOSE to close their doors,

Nothing new here, I said that first.

and let 1,000's go WITHOUT charitable services, because they won't accept change...

And back to the essence of the issue. It is because the church has a spine, stands on its values and refuses to bow at the altar of Obama to compromise their integrity. The feds have no right to force the church to violate its doctrine and you know it. You KNOW this without a doubt, you are willfully ignoring the constitution and the facts.

[NeedKarma]

BSA verified my argument.

Concerning abortion, which I never brought up. The fact that you need an 'internet win" so bad is sad. LOL!

[speechlesstx]

Concerning abortion, which I never brought up. The fact that you need an 'internet win" so bad is sad. LOL!

The word "abortion does not appear in my response to your post:

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

I repeat, I made the distinction between the hospital and the content provider. Ignoring plain facts because of your inexplicable need to try and humiliate others is what's sad.

[excon]

You KNOW this without a doubt, you are willfully ignoring the constitution and the facts.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't. And what YOU know is that you won't find a more ardent supporter of our vaunted Constitution, than me. But, it is NOT absolute. If the Constitution were so clear, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

When you break down the issues, you find one group of citizens pitted against another. Some times deciding who's right is EASY for me. Some times it's not. Here we have the rights of women pitted against the rights of the church..

I BELIEVE in religious freedom. I also BELIEVE in women's rights. Therefore, the compromise Obama worked out satisfies MY Constitutional ruffles. It GIVES the church the OPPORTUNITY to adhere to its principals, if it would only view the payments made to their employees the SAME way they view the payments to their insurer.

But, the church CHOOSES not to. In my view, it absolutely COULD, WITHOUT compromising its religious freedom, as it did in all those states where they never raised a peep, and the same Constitutional issues were at play. Are they doing it now for religious reasons, or political reasons?

excon

[tomder55]

Nope.. They self insured . Now that won't be an option.

[excon]

nope .. They self insured . Now that won't be an option.

Hello again, tom:

Cool. As long as they cover women's health EQUALLY with men's health, there won't be a problem.

But, then there's this problem about taking money from Medicaid. If the church renounced THAT, then I think they could tell the government where to go...

excon

[NeedKarma]

The word "abortion does not appear in my response to your post:

Not there but it obviously was the main point of your email to them since that's what they responded to.

[tomder55]

In Obama's adopted home town of Chi-town Francis Cardinal George sent a message to parishioners that the Catholic Church would shut down its various institutions in the community before violating the core doctrine of Humanae Vitae by providing contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients to its employees, free or otherwise.

Catholic New World - What are you going to give up this Lent? - Cardinal's Column

Obamacare will collapse on it's own weight if they think they can replace all the Catholic charities with government institutions .

Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

Cool. As long as they cover women's health EQUALLY with men's health, there won't be a problem.

But, then there's this problem about taking money from Medicaid. If the church renounced THAT, then I think they could tell the government where to go...

excon

They self insured to get by the state mandates . The President's plan won't give them the option.

The church has already shut down some services over these type of mandates already. Do you really want to test their resolve ?

I don't think it will happen.Now that the President has stoked the culture wars ,he will back down .

[speechlesstx]

Not there...

Thank you, stick to the known facts please.

[excon]

which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

Hello again, tom:

So, like the air traffic controllers of years gone by, the church is threatening Obama. I'd call their bluff.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

I don't. And what YOU know is that you won't find a more ardent supporter of our vaunted Constitution, than me. But, it is NOT absolute. If the Constitution were so clear, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

I never said it was absolute. I know I can't start a church that sacrifices What I said was the Obama regime is "redefining" religion in violation of the establishment clause. You admit it in saying the problem is churches won't "change".

[excon]

You admit it in saying the problem is churches won't "change".

Hello again, Steve:

THIS church won't change THIS time. However, I believe history is RIFE religious accommodations. We stopped nuns from abusing pupils in Catholic schools, didn't we? The church didn't close the schools. I don't know why THAT wasn't the state stomping on religious freedom.

excon

[speechlesstx]

As far as I know abusing others, including sexually assaulting children is and always has been against church doctrine. Healing the sick is not.

[excon]

As far as I know abusing others, including sexually assaulting children is and always has been against church doctrine. Healing the sick is not.

Hello again, Steve:

Fortunately, I didn't go to Catholic school.. Are you telling me that all the stories I heard about nuns whacking students are BS? Are you sure?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Did I say the stories were BS? No, I said "As far as I know abusing others, including sexually assaulting children is and always has been against church doctrine." I can't help it anyone in the church abused someone else, that doesn't change doctrine. Again, you guys seem to think the tail wags the dog.

P.S. I'm not Catholic, but I'm smart enough to know that if they can do it to Catholics, they can do it to me. And you.