PDA

View Full Version : Obama Catholic Church speaks out on Obama again


HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 08:01 AM
Obama Offends the Catholic Left
A contraceptive mandate provokes an unnecessary war.
By WILLIAM MCGURN



When Barack Obama secured his party's nomination for president in 2008, one group of Democrats had special reason to cheer.

These were Democrats who were reliably liberal on policy but horrified by the party's sometimes knee-jerk animosity to faith. The low point may have been the 1992 Democratic convention. There the liberal but pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Sr., was humiliated when he was denied a speaking slot while a pro-choice Republican activist from his home state was allowed.

With Mr. Obama, all this looked to be in the past. In 2006, the Illinois senator delivered a speech declaring that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." He followed up by appearing at fund-raisers for the anti-abortion Bob Casey Jr. during Mr. Casey's successful run for Sen. Rick Santorum's senate seat.

Sen. Casey went on to co-chair Mr. Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council. Sixteen years after the snub to his dad, he was given a prime-time speaking slot at the 2008 Democratic convention. And Mr. Obama would go on to capture a majority of the Catholic vote.

Now, suddenly, we have headlines about the president's "war on the Catholic Church." Mostly they stem from a Health and Human Services mandate that forces every employer to provide employees with health coverage that not only covers birth control and sterilization, but makes them free. Predictably, the move has drawn fire from the Catholic bishops.

An HHS mandate requires employers to provide health coverage that covers birth control.

Less predictable—and far more interesting—has been the heat from the Catholic left, including many who have in the past given the president vital cover. In a post for the left-leaning National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winter minces few words. Under the headline "J'ACCUSE," he rightly takes the president to the woodshed for the politics of the decision, for the substance, and for how "shamefully" it treats "those Catholics who went out on a limb" for him.

The message Mr. Obama is sending, says Mr. Winters, is "that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us."

Mr. Winters is not alone. The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience"—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of "civil disobedience" and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.

In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That's the same understanding two of the president's own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school's First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.

A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an "unnecessary government intervention" that puts many organizations such as his in an "untenable position."

Here's just part of what he means by "untenable": Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to "shove my rosary beads" down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party's positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?

Catholic liberals appreciate that this HHS decision is more than a return to the hostility that sent so many Catholic Democrats fleeing to the Republican Party these past few decades. They understand that if left to stand, this ruling threatens the religious institutions closest to their hearts—those serving Americans in need, such as hospitals, soup kitchens and immigrant services.

Conservatives may enjoy the problems this creates for Mr. Obama this election year. Still, for those who care about issues such as life and marriage and religious liberty that so roil our body politic, we ought to wish Catholic progressives well in their intra-liberal fight. For we shall never arrive at the consensus we hope for if we allow our politics to be divided between a party of faith and a party of animosity to faith.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 08:05 AM
Maybe this is what has the church and others upset: I can't believe the numbers are that high but have no idea if it is or not

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/23/54559615-abortions-since-roe-vs-wade-decision-in-1973/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifenews%2Fnewsfeed+%28LifeNews.com%29


(LifeNews) — A new estimate published by the National Right to Life Committee indicates there have been an estimated 54,559,615 abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

Although the March for Life took place today, yesterday was the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions — companion cases from Texas and Georgia that struck down pro-life laws protecting unborn children across the country.

In a new document, “Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends,” NRLC education director Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon estimates that there have been 54,559,615 abortions since 1973 based on data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, a former Planned Parenthood research arm. Guttmacher receives numbers directly from abortion centers themselves and is the prime source for more current figures because the Centers for Disease Control has never tabulated accurate numbers of abortions. The CDC relies on figures from state health departments, some of which rely on voluntary reporting — and it hasn’t had data from some states such as California and New Hampshire for more than a decade.

“Because of these different methods of data collection, GI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform,” O’Bannon says.

whoman69
01-24-2012, 01:35 PM
Because the President decides whether abortion is legal or not...

Republicans had the White House, majorities in both houses of Congress and a majority in the Supreme Court for six years and did nothing because it takes away their lynchpin issue, an issue that has many ignoring their stand on tax breaks for millionaires to vote against their own economic self interests.

The Catholic Church has taken the stand that not only is abortion immoral, but that contraception itself should be outlawed. This in a time when the population of this planet just went over 7 billion.

jiveturkey
01-24-2012, 01:44 PM
The Catholic Church has taken the stand that not only is abortion immoral, but that contraception itself should be outlawed. This in a time when the population of this planet just went over 7 billion.
For the longest time I thought that over population was a major issue but more and more it looks like we're nearing "peak population"

It seems like every other week or so a birth rate article pops up on my news feed.

Here one that I remember from last week.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/15/145133220/brazils-falling-birth-rate-a-new-way-of-thinking

La literatura
01-24-2012, 01:47 PM
I think it would be hard to allow a distinction for religious organizations to be allowed to opt out of providing some services in their health care plans. I think it would have to be either birth control is included for all, or not included for anyone.

For instance, a Catholic non-profit can be exempted, but a Jewish non-profit must pay the extra? Could a particular Jewish non-profit branch out from the traditional Jewish understanding, and be against contraception?

Why not a corporation who board of directors has a religious belief against contraception? They decide they should be exempted because it's against their beliefs. Is that okay?

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 01:54 PM
Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate

orange
01-24-2012, 02:13 PM
The "simple matter" is for these organizations that just can't bring themselves to get the hell out of the lives of their employees to give their employees a healthcare premium and let them choose their own plans.

But then they don't get to control women's choices, which is really what it's all about.

La literatura
01-24-2012, 02:17 PM
Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate

Simple. I'm just talking about carving out an exception, which the article deals with.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 02:18 PM
The "simple matter" is for these organizations that just can't bring themselves to get the hell out of the lives of their employees to give their employees a healthcare premium and let them choose their own plans.

But then they don't get to control women's choices, which is really what it's all about.

"Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate".....that accomplishes exactly what you said I believe. No one is forced to do anything, No one is required to do anything that they have a moral opposition to, nor is anyone prevented form getting exactly what they want. Or Heaven forbid, buy their birth control pills. With money. Getting organizations out of peoples lives means no dictates.

orange
01-24-2012, 02:23 PM
"Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate".....that accomplishes exactly what you said I believe.

No, it doesn't. ALL plans must cover birth control. That's the current situation. If these orgs. are allowed to foist incomplete coverage on their employees, those employees will have to go buy another plan with their own money.

Getting organizations out of peoples lives means no dictates.

By all means, let's do it. Starting with the Catholic Church that many if not most of these employees don't even belong to.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 02:45 PM
No, it doesn't. ALL plans must cover birth control. That's the current situation. If these orgs. are allowed to foist incomplete coverage on their employees, those employees will have to go buy another plan with their own money.



By all means, let's do it. Starting with the Catholic Church that many if not most of these employees don't even belong to.


Who says "all plans must cover birth control"? Isn't that a matter of writing into or out of the law? Its not like a dictate from the mothership....people make that rule and if it is as stupid and disabling as it seems to be then it can be changed.


People buying services with their own money. What? That cannot be can it?

orange
01-24-2012, 02:49 PM
Who says "all plans must cover birth control"?

The same people who say you must have a license to drive. In this case, it is even less of a demand. No employer has to offer any coverage. They simply pay a fee/tax/whatever it's called for their non-covered employees. And they can avoid even that by simply picking up their premiums for coverage of those employees' own choice.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 03:03 PM
The same people who say you must have a license to drive. In this case, it is even less of a demand. No employer has to offer any coverage. They simply pay a fee/tax/whatever it's called for their non-covered employees. And they can avoid even that by simply picking up their premiums for coverage of those employees' own choice.


But that can be changed . It isn't a permeant rule of nature, its just a part of the current law that can be changed and remove this issue 100%. The nature of forced participation and making a one rule fits all at the federal level is exactly why ObamaCare will fail.

And even If I am wrong, if Obama can hand out his special opt outs like candy to every Union that he gets money from, why can't they just simply do same for a church?

vailpass
01-24-2012, 03:05 PM
The same people who say you must have a license to drive. In this case, it is even less of a demand. No employer has to offer any coverage. They simply pay a fee/tax/whatever it's called for their non-covered employees. And they can avoid even that by simply picking up their premiums for coverage of those employees' own choice.

Do you even hear yourself when you say shit like this?

orange
01-24-2012, 03:05 PM
And even If I am wrong, if Obama can hand out his special opt outs like candy to every Union that he gets money from, why can't they just simply do same for a church?

He chose not to. Simple.

InChiefsHell
01-24-2012, 03:09 PM
Why does birth control have to be covered anyway? If ya ain't got the insurance, and can't afford a condom (whatever) then watch a movie instead of having sex. It's that whole self control thing that we apparently are too animal-istic to have...so, let's make everyone HAVE to have it and force organizations that are dead set against it to provide it. I love this country...

InChiefsHell
01-24-2012, 03:11 PM
He chose not to. Simple.

:spock:

So...he IS being a dictator and that's alrighty with you. K.

Amnorix
01-24-2012, 03:23 PM
If the Republicans make this election about abortion, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Would be the dumbest move ever. Might as well hand the election to Obama at that point.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 03:38 PM
He chose not to. Simple.


Perfect example of his problem solving skills.

patteeu
01-24-2012, 04:05 PM
Because the President decides whether abortion is legal or not...

Republicans had the White House, majorities in both houses of Congress and a majority in the Supreme Court for six years and did nothing because it takes away their lynchpin issue, an issue that has many ignoring their stand on tax breaks for millionaires to vote against their own economic self interests.

The Catholic Church has taken the stand that not only is abortion immoral, but that contraception itself should be outlawed. This in a time when the population of this planet just went over 7 billion.

When Republicans were in the majority, this wasn't a problem so there wasn't anything for them to fix. Are you sure you understand what this thread is about?

patteeu
01-24-2012, 04:11 PM
He chose not to. Simple.

Right. That's why it's rightfully considered an act of war (figuratively speaking) on Catholicism.

orange
01-24-2012, 04:15 PM
Right. That's why it's rightfully considered an act of war (figuratively speaking) on Catholicism....

98 Percent Of Catholic Women Use Birth Control Banned By Church

First Posted: 4/14/11 10:20 AM ET Updated: 6/14/11 06:12 AM ET

(Reuters) -- Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.

"In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible," said the report's lead author Rachel Jones.

read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html

I'm sure he's losing sleep.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 04:16 PM
98 Percent Of Catholic Women Use Birth Control Banned By Church

First Posted: 4/14/11 10:20 AM ET Updated: 6/14/11 06:12 AM ET

(Reuters) -- Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.

"In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible," said the report's lead author Rachel Jones.

read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html

I'm sure he's losing sleep.


But they don't demand the government pay for it.

orange
01-24-2012, 04:18 PM
But they don't demand the government pay for it.

I have NO idea what you're talking about. Nothing in this entire thread is about the government paying for it.

AustinChief
01-24-2012, 04:20 PM
If the Republicans make this election about abortion, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Would be the dumbest move ever. Might as well hand the election to Obama at that point.

This isn't about abortion. It's about forcing the Catholic Church to PAY for abortions.

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

This applies to anyone who is an accessory to the act. So basically, this law would cause the Catholic Church to excommunicate itself in America.

I don't agree with the Church's stance on abortion but I certainly don't think it's ok to force my view on the Church through a heavy handed unpopular law.

If the Obama administration continues to force this issue ... it WILL blow up in their face. Unfortunately it may be after the 2012 elections. IF Obama wins in 2012, expect Pelosi-Care to cause the Senate and House to be heavily stacked with Repubs in 2014 and a sweeping loss for the Dems in the 2016 election.

AustinChief
01-24-2012, 04:21 PM
I have NO idea what you're talking about. Nothing in this entire thread is about the government paying for it.

No, it's far worse. The government is requiring the Catholic Church to pay for it.

orange
01-24-2012, 04:26 PM
No, it's far worse. The government is requiring the Catholic Church to pay for it.

No, it's not. The Catholic Church doesn't have to pay one red cent.

HEALTH PLANS to fit the requirements for the law have to cover CONTRACEPTION (not abortion, by the way). The Catholic Church can simply stay out of it.

As for the political implications, I have to laugh. Didn't you just read that 98% of Catholic women ignore their Bishops?! And I would bet that virtually 100% of non-Catholics who happen to work for Catholic-owned businesses do.

vailpass
01-24-2012, 04:26 PM
This isn't about abortion. It's about forcing the Catholic Church to PAY for abortions.



This applies to anyone who is an accessory to the act. So basically, this law would cause the Catholic Church to excommunicate itself in America.

I don't agree with the Church's stance on abortion but I certainly don't think it's ok to force my view on the Church through a heavy handed unpopular law.

If the Obama administration continues to force this issue ... it WILL blow up in their face. Unfortunately it may be after the 2012 elections. IF Obama wins in 2012, expect Pelosi-Care to cause the Senate and House to be heavily stacked with Repubs in 2014 and a sweeping loss for the Dems in the 2016 election.

Exactamundo. We get that abortions happen, we get that a lot of us (Catholics) use birth control what we do not get and will NEVER get is those among us who hold a deep and sincere religious objection being forced to pay for it.

orange
01-24-2012, 04:36 PM
Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial
September 11, 2009

Last week, our editorial argued that one of the most important lessons pastors of the Church in the United States need to draw from the history of interactions with Senator Ted Kennedy on the sanctity of human life is that a strategy of conscience-education-alone with “personally opposed, publicly pro-choice” Catholic politicians hasn’t worked. The attempt to engage, teach and help persuade such politicians to conversion didn’t succeed with Senator Kennedy and it hasn’t succeeded yet with other pro-choice Catholic legislators.

To say that it hasn’t succeeded, however, is really not strong enough.

...

Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durban, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction that pro-choice Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of personally opposed, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.

read more: http://catholicpreaching.com/index.php?content=articles&articles=20090911anchor

AustinChief
01-24-2012, 04:38 PM
No, it's not. The Catholic Church doesn't have to pay one red cent.

HEALTH PLANS to fit the requirements for the law have to cover CONTRACEPTION (not abortion, by the way). The Catholic Church can simply stay out of it.

As for the political implications, I have to laugh. Didn't you just read that 98% of Catholic women ignore their Bishops?! And I would bet that virtually 100% of non-Catholics who happen to work for Catholic-owned businesses do.

And yes it does cover abortion (as the Catholic Church defines it.. see Plan B). Do your research.

And how can the Catholic Church "stay out of it"? (without paying an inexcusably excessive fine)

http://www.catholic.org/college/story.php?id=43667

Right now the Catholic Church is still fairly quiet on all of this. You piss them off enough and you will have a shit storm of epic proportions.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2012, 04:40 PM
Because the President decides whether abortion is legal or not...
The president does not decide this. It's already been decided but the Congress can take issues that should not be part of federal jurisdiction, as they belong to the states, and bar the SC from even deciding them. Yesireeeee! That is Constitutional. States have always had jurisdiction over violent crimes.

Brock
01-24-2012, 05:36 PM
Right now the Catholic Church is still fairly quiet on all of this. You piss them off enough and you will have a shit storm of epic proportions.

Let's go ahead and do it anyway. If it were up to those people we'd still be living in the dark ages.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 05:39 PM
Does anyone believe the Catholic run and owned Hospitals will take being told to do abortions? Really?

Brock
01-24-2012, 05:41 PM
Does anyone believe the Catholic run and owned Hospitals will take being told to do abortions? Really?

Is that what they're being told?

orange
01-24-2012, 05:42 PM
Does anyone believe the Catholic run and owned Hospitals will take being told to do abortions? Really?

You're drinking, right? It's the only explanation.

otherstar
01-24-2012, 05:52 PM
Is that what they're being told?

In a word: YES!! That's part of the whole problem. Not only is King Barack telling Catholic owned institutions (that goes for colleges, parishes, diocesan offices, not just hospitals) that they have to pay for insurance that covers contraception, sterilizations (tubal ligations and vasectomy), and abortions...but the door is being opened to force Catholic-owned hospitals to perform contraceptive procedures and abortions (which definitely goes against everything the Church teaches). That's why this is such a big deal. The mainstream media isn't reporting the whole story. The media is leading you to believe it's just hospitals...but it's parish offices, schools, colleges, etc., that offer insurance to their employees (whether those employees be Catholic or not).

Obama Offends Catholic Left (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html)

Obama Turns Back on Catholics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-turns-his-back-on-catholics/2011/11/14/gIQABHCKMN_story.html)

Why Obama is Wrong on the HHS Regulations (http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/jaccuse)

HonestChieffan
01-24-2012, 05:57 PM
Is that what they're being told?


Its what the administrators are being told will happen as the Secretary establishes the rules.

Brock
01-24-2012, 05:57 PM
In a word: YES!! That's part of the whole problem. Not only is King Barack telling Catholic owned institutions (that goes for colleges, parishes, diocesan offices, not just hospitals) that they have to pay for insurance that covers contraception, sterilizations (tubal ligations and vasectomy), and abortions...but the door is being opened to force Catholic-owned hospitals to perform contraceptive procedures and abortions (which definitely goes against everything the Church teaches). That's why this is such a big deal. The mainstream media isn't reporting the whole story. The media is leading you to believe it's just hospitals...but it's parish offices, schools, colleges, etc., that offer insurance to their employees (whether those employees be Catholic or not).

They SHOULD HAVE TO offer insurance that covers normal reproductive things. Is the almighty church also not going to pay for vaccinations, since they might contain material from aborted fetuses? You do understand these aren't necessarily catholic people that work at these places, yes?

orange
01-24-2012, 05:58 PM
the door is being opened

http://blog.geeksaresexytech.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/peep.jpg

otherstar
01-24-2012, 06:01 PM
They SHOULD HAVE TO offer insurance that covers normal reproductive things. Is the almighty church also not going to pay for vaccinations, since they might contain material from aborted fetuses? You do understand these aren't necessarily catholic people that work at these places, yes?

No shit Dick Tracy. But why is our Goverment stepping in and telling people they HAVE TO violate their consciences? Sounds rather totalitarian to me, not American, not by a long shot. We're edging close to a police state. You can numb yourself to that fact if you want, but I want no part of it!

Brock
01-24-2012, 06:05 PM
No shit Dick Tracy. But why is our Goverment stepping in and telling people they HAVE TO violate their consciences? Sounds rather totalitarian to me, not American, not by a long shot. We're edging close to a police state. You can numb yourself to that fact if you want, but I want no part of it!

Oh, those poor babies, having to pay for normal, acceptable health procedures. The terrible nazis are forcing them to come into the latter half of the 20th century. I feel so sorry for them.

otherstar
01-24-2012, 06:13 PM
Oh, those poor babies, having to pay for normal, acceptable health procedures. The terrible nazis are forcing them to come into the latter half of the 20th century. I feel so sorry for them.

It's not just that. Wake up your mind and quit reading everything through your biased point of view.

Our personal libertiy is slowly being taken away in this country. Obama said he was going to get rid of the Patriot Act, but he only made it stronger. He's also made it legal to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial.

Following the type of logic you are using, I suppose you wouldn't mind if he let Muslims set up sharia law courts either. Under this logic: Who gives a shit if anyone's rights are ignored? Ignore the rights of one group, cater to others Fuck 'em...lock all of those Medieval-minded Catholics up in concentrations camps if they won't conform. Go after anyone that doesn't live conform next. It's worked before, it'll work again...:rolleyes:

Brock
01-24-2012, 06:32 PM
It's not just that. Wake up your mind and quit reading everything through your biased point of view.

Our personal libertiy is slowly being taken away in this country. Obama said he was going to get rid of the Patriot Act, but he only made it stronger. He's also made it legal to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial.

Following the type of logic you are using, I suppose you wouldn't mind if he let Muslims set up sharia law courts either. Under this logic: Who gives a shit if anyone's rights are ignored? Ignore the rights of one group, cater to others Fuck 'em...lock all of those Medieval-minded Catholics up in concentrations camps if they won't conform. Go after anyone that doesn't live conform next. It's worked before, it'll work again...:rolleyes:

I don't care to discuss the patriot act, or detaining american citizens without trial. Try to stay on topic.

Religious beliefs do not exempt anyone from the law, otherwise people can refuse to register for the draft, refuse to pay taxes, etc. The church needs to take their tax free profits, and sit down and shut the fuck up.

patteeu
01-24-2012, 06:39 PM
They SHOULD HAVE TO offer insurance that covers normal reproductive things. Is the almighty church also not going to pay for vaccinations, since they might contain material from aborted fetuses? You do understand these aren't necessarily catholic people that work at these places, yes?

No they shouldn't. No one should.

Brock
01-24-2012, 06:44 PM
No they shouldn't. No one should.

If everybody else has to, they should.

otherstar
01-24-2012, 06:49 PM
I don't care to discuss the patriot act, or detaining american citizens without trial. Try to stay on topic.

Religious beliefs do not exempt anyone from the law, otherwise people can refuse to register for the draft, refuse to pay taxes, etc. The church needs to take their tax free profits, and sit down and shut the **** up.

You're so easy to bait. I'm staying on topic, I was illustrating the slippery slope argument. It's basic logic, please try to keep up. I know it's probably hard for you.

There are plenty of religious exemptions to law (um..conscientious objections to the draft was legal the last time I checked). Refusing to pay taxes at all would be wrong, but anybody who has read Rich Dad, Poor Dad knows a few legal ways to avoid that (I know more than a few people who haven't paid personal income taxes in years...legally).

otherstar
01-24-2012, 06:51 PM
If everybody else has to, they should.

So if the government said Catholics had to eat in separate restaurants, they should? That logic didn't work pre-Civil Rights...it doesn't work now.

ThatRaceCardGuy
01-24-2012, 08:34 PM
Do you ever post anything that isn't scratch and sniff..I mean copy and paste?

Pioli Zombie
01-25-2012, 04:01 AM
Has he denied the Priests their constitutionally protected rights to fondle and sodomize young boys or something?

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 05:48 AM
Has he denied the Priests their constitutionally protected rights to fondle and sodomize young boys or something?

And finally some idiot goes down this road. Surprised it took this long for the mouthbreathing Catholic haters to show up. Nice contribution to the thread. Bravo.:shake:

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 05:52 AM
Oh, those poor babies, having to pay for normal, acceptable health procedures. The terrible nazis are forcing them to come into the latter half of the 20th century. I feel so sorry for them.

Let me ask you something. If your daughter wanted an abortion, and you didn't believe that she should have one, would it be OK to force YOU to pay for it even if YOU don't believe that it's proper to do so? Even if your daughter wanted to have it?

Is it right then to expect the Church to cover something and in essence pay for it even though it is against their beliefs? Is the ability to have birth control SUCH a right that women should not even have to pay for it out of their own pockets? It's not that expensive, why can't they pay for it themselves?

Bump
01-25-2012, 05:53 AM
JFC, the catholic church is ****ing stupid. They need to focus on raping young boys, because that's what the catholic church is all about. They must figure that since Old man on boy action has never caused a pregnancy, they figure that who the fuck needs condoms, so outlaw them! If they are outlawed than the priests have no concern about busting their loads into a 9 year olds mouth. The vatican just needs to be burned down and outlaw Catholicism and promote abortion and birth control.

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 06:02 AM
JFC, the catholic church is ****ing stupid. They need to focus on raping young boys, because that's what the catholic church is all about. They must figure that since Old man on boy action has never caused a pregnancy, they figure that who the **** needs condoms, so outlaw them! If they are outlawed than the priests have no concern about busting their loads into a 9 year olds mouth. The vatican just needs to be burned down and outlaw Catholicism and promote abortion and birth control.

wow. OK then. Thanks for proving my point earlier.

ThatRaceCardGuy
01-25-2012, 06:04 AM
Republicans want a smaller less intrusive government that lets people live their lives...UNLESS, it has to do with gay marriage, abortion or religion..then, they want the government to mandate and control it. Save us HCF from another one of your reject left wing nut job copy and past threads...its getting old.

orange
01-25-2012, 06:13 AM
Let me ask you something. If your daughter wanted an abortion, and you didn't believe that she should have one, would it be OK to force YOU to pay for it even if YOU don't believe that it's proper to do so? Even if your daughter wanted to have it?

Is it right then to expect the Church to cover something and in essence pay for it even though it is against their beliefs? Is the ability to have birth control SUCH a right that women should not even have to pay for it out of their own pockets? It's not that expensive, why can't they pay for it themselves?

Let me ask you something. A few things, in fact. When your employer hands you your paycheck (1) is it a gift or is it earned compensation? (2) Does your employer have ANY say whatsoever in what you do with that money? (3) Do you even need to tell him what you do with that money? (4) In short, is it YOUR money or THEIRS? And by the way, (5) are they your employers or your parents? (6) Do they get to ground you if you talk back to them? (7) Spank you if you're naughty?

Now let's say you're a Catholic employer. You bring in a company like Humana, you tell your employees here's Plan A, B, C, and D. You can take A for free, B for $100, C for $120, or D for $200. Now you will NEVER write a check to any drug company, condom maker, or even abortionist. In fact, if confidentiality laws mean anything at all, you will never even know if any of your employees ever uses their insurance for birth control. Or any other of their very private expenses that you have no right or purpose to know about, for that matter.

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 06:26 AM
Let me ask you something. A few things, in fact. When your employer hands you your paycheck (1) is it a gift or is it earned compensation? (2) Does your employer have ANY say whatsoever in what you do with that money? (3) Do you even need to tell him what you do with that money? (4) In short, is it YOUR money or THEIRS?

Well, I guess it depends on what the employer matches as far as paying for benefits. Some employers (most probably) contribute a certain amount of money to people's benefits. Mine does. Therefore, I don't have a choice in what coverage they offer me, other than to take my pick of what's available. Whatever the company negotiated that they feel is affordable for them.

Now let's say you're a Catholic employer. You bring in a company like Humana, you tell your employees here's Plan A, B, C, and D. You can take A for free, B for $100, C for $120, or D for $200. Now you will NEVER write a check to any drug company, condom maker, or even abortionist. In fact, if confidentiality laws mean anything at all, you will never even know if any of your employees ever uses their insurance for birth control. Or any other of their very private expenses that you have no right or purpose to know about, for that matter.

Companies pick and choose coverage all the time. Sometimes employers offer Dental, others don't. Some offer vision coverage, others don't. Some offer MEDICAL SAVINGS PLANS, others don't. To me, when it comes to something that your employer is not going to cover, you should kick in to a medical savings plan. That way it is truly YOU paying for it, and your employer is not forced to pay for something they didn't want to pay for.

orange
01-25-2012, 06:38 AM
Whatever the company negotiated that they feel is affordable for them.

Which these Catholic companies are still perfectly free to do. But all the eligible plans will meet certain minimums, which the Catholic Church has no say in. As it should be.

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 06:43 AM
Which these Catholic companies are still perfectly free to do. But all the eligible plans will meet certain minimums, which the Catholic Church has no say in. As it should be.

The "certain minimums" go against what the Church is willing to pay for, because it's against their fundamental beliefs. They didn't used to have to be forced to do that. Now they do. Surely, you can see the objection.

Would you be comfortable if employers were "forced" to cover training classes for natural family planning? How about mandatory abortion counseling, to maybe talk the person out of having an abortion? If these things rub you the wrong way, maybe you can understand the argument.

orange
01-25-2012, 06:49 AM
The "certain minimums" go against what the Church is willing to pay for, because it's against their fundamental beliefs. They didn't used to have to be forced to do that. Now they do. Surely, you can see the objection.

Would you be comfortable if employers were "forced" to cover training classes for natural family planning? How about mandatory abortion counseling, to maybe talk the person out of having an abortion? If these things rub you the wrong way, maybe you can understand the argument.

I'm perfectly comfortable with people being able to buy what they want with no input whatsoever from their bosses. And you completely sidestepped the question - does your employer have ANY say whatsoever in what you do with your paycheck? You could even go to an abortionist. They have NO SAY. If you use your money to go buy illegal drugs, your employer didn't make you an addict. Try suing them and see what happens.

This insurance package is just compensation, like money. It is for the EMPLOYEE, not the employer. And as I said, if the company isn't self-insuring, they will never, ever know whether a penny is used on birth control. And any money that IS used on birth control won't be THEIR money, it will be the EMPLOYEE'S.

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 06:57 AM
I'm perfectly comfortable with people being able to buy what they want with no input whatsoever from their bosses. And you completely sidestepped the question - does your employer have ANY say whatsoever in what you do with your paycheck? You could even go to an abortionist. They have NO SAY. If you use your money to go buy illegal drugs, your employer didn't make you an addict. Try suing them and see what happens.

This insurance package is just compensation, like money. It is for the EMPLOYEE, not the employer. And as I said, if the company isn't self-insuring, they will never, ever know whether a penny is used on birth control. And any money that IS used on birth control won't be THEIR money, it will be the EMPLOYEE'S.

My employer takes out money for insurance plans that I have to choose from. They may or may not offer coverage that I want. I wasn't sidestepping the issue. They DO have some say in what compensation they wish to give me, how much they are willing to kick in for insurance, and what type of coverage I will get. I don't have a say in that.

These "guaranteed minimum" coverages you site are new guaranteed minimums, based on the political climate of the day. They go against what the Church believes it should have a part in providing to it's employees. They have never had to do so before. But since YOU happen to agree with these guaranteed minimums, you don't mind the rights of the Church being trampled on. I don't care if the HuffPo finds a survey that shows 98% of sexually active Catholic women use some form of birth control, that's their problem. They do not have a RIGHT to birth control. They have a right to buy it themselves, but they don't have a RIGHT that their employer, weather it be the Church or not, provide that for them.

I guess it boils down to what you believe people have the RIGHT to have. We disagree on this point.

orange
01-25-2012, 07:05 AM
No, this is where we have our fundamental disagreement:

But since YOU happen to agree with these guaranteed minimums, you don't mind the rights of the Church being trampled on.

The Church has absolutely no rights in this matter. It's not their money, it's not their choice, it's not their business. They PAY their employees and it's now their EMPLOYEES' business.

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 07:26 AM
No, this is where we have our fundamental disagreement:



The Church has absolutely no rights in this matter. It's not their money, it's not their choice, it's not their business. They PAY their employees and it's now their EMPLOYEES' business.

You are correct. We fundamentally disagree on this. The Church probably kicks in a certain amount of money to cover the premiums. You seem to think that every employer should be forced to offer coverages that (for WHATEVER reason) they don't feel they need to, and that the premiums that they kick in are not theirs but rather the employees. Again, since you agree with these "minimum coverages" you don't have a problem with them being forced on employers.

See, if all the money went to the employee and the Church did not cut a check to an insurance company to pay for coverage, then you'd have an argument. Because at that point, the employee would truly be paying for whatever they wanted without the Church's help or say so. But now the Church has to go out, find an insurer who offers coverage that they do not want to subsidize but are now forced to do so. OR, they can pay a fine and drop coverage altogether for their employees, who can then go on the Gubment plan.

We just disagree.

orange
01-25-2012, 07:49 AM
You seem to think that every employer should be forced to offer coverages that (for WHATEVER reason) they don't feel they need to, and that the premiums that they kick in are not theirs but rather the employees. Again, since you agree with these "minimum coverages" you don't have a problem with them being forced on employers.


Not exactly. I think we should kick all employers completely out of the equation. It should be individuals' choice and responsibility completely absent any input from their employer. But that's not what we got; we got this bizarre hybrid that will eventually give way. In the meantime, though, the less input employers have on their employees' choices, the better. All employers.

InChiefsHell
01-25-2012, 08:02 AM
Not exactly. I think we should kick all employers completely out of the equation. It should be individuals' choice and responsibility completely absent any input from their employer. But that's not what we got; we got this bizarre hybrid that will eventually give way. In the meantime, though, the less input employers have on their employees' choices, the better. All employers.

This I don't have a problem with. If employees could have the total compensation given to them including the amount of premium that their employers provide, then join insurance co-ops or something (notice, NOT a government plan) then I'd have no problem with it at all.

otherstar
01-25-2012, 08:47 AM
This I don't have a problem with. If employees could have the total compensation given to them including the amount of premium that their employers provide, then join insurance co-ops or something (notice, NOT a government plan) then I'd have no problem with it at all.

Actually, this could be the good solution to the problem. Have no employer offer insurance as a benefit and require employees to pay for their own insurance. Employees could use their money as they see fit (to which the Catholic Church would not have a valid objection). Market competition would likely drive premiums down because everyone would be looking for the best deal (the same business model employed by auto and home insurance).

BucEyedPea
01-25-2012, 10:58 AM
Republicans want a smaller less intrusive government that lets people live their lives...UNLESS, it has to do with gay marriage, abortion or religion..then, they want the government to mandate and control it. Save us HCF from another one of your reject left wing nut job copy and past threads...its getting old.

Your side is a mirror image of the same inconsistencies.

You want all those social issues to be free but not the economy, what people want to spend their money on or property.

Take a look in the MIRROR!

whoman69
01-25-2012, 01:12 PM
When Republicans were in the majority, this wasn't a problem so there wasn't anything for them to fix. Are you sure you understand what this thread is about?

Right...I am not surprised you blindingly believe this. Then again, I keep forgetting you are from Bizarroworld.

mnchiefsguy
01-26-2012, 02:02 PM
Not exactly. I think we should kick all employers completely out of the equation. It should be individuals' choice and responsibility completely absent any input from their employer. But that's not what we got; we got this bizarre hybrid that will eventually give way. In the meantime, though, the less input employers have on their employees' choices, the better. All employers.

I agree with Orange on this. Health insurance should be like any other insurance...homeowners, auto, etc. Instead of employers paying for plans for employees, etc....they should just give that money to the employee, and allow the employee to get the coverage they choose. Unfortunately, the system does not work that way at the present time, and employers offer insurance to be competitive in obtaining valuable employees.

mnchiefsguy
01-26-2012, 02:04 PM
Actually, this could be the good solution to the problem. Have no employer offer insurance as a benefit and require employees to pay for their own insurance. Employees could use their money as they see fit (to which the Catholic Church would not have a valid objection). Market competition would likely drive premiums down because everyone would be looking for the best deal (the same business model employed by auto and home insurance).

It is so simple...and it would work...which means it will probably never happen.

BucEyedPea
01-26-2012, 02:13 PM
I agree with Orange on this. Health insurance should be like any other insurance...homeowners, auto, etc. Instead of employers paying for plans for employees, etc....they should just give that money to the employee, and allow the employee to get the coverage they choose. Unfortunately, the system does not work that way at the present time, and employers offer insurance to be competitive in obtaining valuable employees.

The question to ask, however, why is it like this? That's due to govt—not the free market.