Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[arnaldoabru 11]

So he was one of those "patriotic socialist"?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alinsky was a communist. Plain and simple.

Alinsky wasn't a communist, and you two had never even heard of the guy until an adulteror mentioned him.

Sean Hannity is an adulterer ?

How do you know where/ when he or anyone heard of Saul Alinksy ? I knew of this 'Rules for Radicals' author well before the '08 election. And what difference does it make ?

Maybe Sean has "the tape"

[arnaldoabru 11]

My link

Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

Published: 08 February, 2012, 01:50

From the campaign trail last month, GOP contender Newt Gingrich said US President Barack Obama had declared a “war on the Catholic Church.” Some clergy have heard that call and are warning the president: look out, we’re ready to rumble.

Responding to the Obama-mandated health insurance policies, Catholic leaders throughout America are outraged over what is being perceived by some as a serious assault on their religion. Under Obama’s health care plan, Catholic hospitals and universities will be required to offer free birth control to employees. While the law will not include entities with solely religious purposes, such as churches, it will extend to church-affiliated companies that do not exclusively support a religious-minded agenda.

Under the provision put forth last month by the president, health plans provided by Roman Catholic institutions that cover non-Catholics must front the cost of “all FDA approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortion.” Even if the policy is aimed at only a section of the church, Catholic leaders say Obama’s insurance plan is an attempt to take down the church by infiltrating it with God-less ideals on their religion, and according to some, they won’t go down without a fight.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says the move is a milestone in terms of taking on the Church, and tells CBS News that it is “unprecedented in American history …for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church.”

“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” adds Donohue.

Upon announcement of the provision to the health plan last month, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said on NBC that is accentuated “a radical Obama administration imposing secular rules on religion” and signaled “a tremendous infringement of religious liberty” that would spawn “very substantial” political fallout.

“Every time you turn around secular government is closing in on and shrinking the rights of religious America,” said Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in 2009. At a separate speaking engagement last month, he specifically called out the president for launching a “war on the Catholic Church.”

The White House has defended last month’s decision, however, insisting that providing contraception free of charge will signal a decline in abortions. The Catholic Church still opposes provided contraception and disputes the argument, and some say it doesn’t stop right there.

“It’s not about contraception. It’s about the right of conscience,” Archbishop Timothy Dolan tells reporters. “The government doesn’t have the right to butt into the internal governance and teachings of the church,” he insists.

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” adds Dolan. “This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights."

Other Catholics are coming out to go after Obama, and the impact could be detrimental to his re-election bid. While Obama won the majority of the votes from American Catholics in 2008, his stance on offering contraception has already attracted mini critics from the church. A grassroots campaign waged against the policy started last year by Archbishop Dolan yielded 57,000 complaints over the plan.

Mormans should be mad that we outlawed polygamy then

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Let me help you with some logic since you seem to be struggling with it.

In your example, you had a practice where it was mostly men taking a specific action and often all but forcing women into polygamous relationships. The women had no say in the matter and could not choose otherwise without coming under great personal risk and being disowned by their families.

In this situation, you have an open market where employees voluntarily and under zero duress choose to work for an organization it knows will not pay for certain things such as sterilization, contraception or abortifacients. In addition to the open employment market where they could have chosen to work somewhere else that would provide this coverage, there is an open market where they can either purchase supplemental insurance coverage that will pay for the above drugs or procedures or pay for these things with their own money without insurance. Their employer will not do anything to prevent them from either of these activities. The employer simply wishes not to be forced to provide these things themselves as they go against their religious convictions.

In your example, the law stops a coercive practice.

In this situation, the law codifies a brand new coercive practice.

In your example, a practice that crushed personal choice was abolished. One side got to choose, the other side got to submit, usually with no say in the matter.

In this situation, the law attempted to elevate one group's choice at the expense of another when leaving the law as it had been with the religious exemption would have maximized choice for the most people. The church could still choose to serve its community without being forced to violate its conscience and the employees still have the choice to work elsewhere, pay for these things with their own money or find other means to have them provided.

Now, stop making ignorant analogies.

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

Half of voters do not agree with the Obama administration’s action forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control measures that they morally oppose.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs, while 10% more are undecided.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of male voters are against the government requiring contraceptive coverage in a case like this. Female voters are almost evenly divided on the question. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Catholic voters oppose this requirement, as do 62% of Evangelical Christians, and 50% of other Protestants. Most non-Christians (56%) support the Obama Administration ruling.

link

What about separation of church and state? Never mind that is just the drum the dems beat when there is a christian running for office on the Republican ticket.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Clear violation of the First Amendment. Entire law should be scrapped and anyone who voted for it thrown out of Congress -- ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Let me help you with some logic since you seem to be struggling with it.

In your example, you had a practice where it was mostly men taking a specific action and often all but forcing women into polygamous relationships. The women had no say in the matter and could not choose otherwise without coming under great personal risk and being disowned by their families.

In this situation, you have an open market where employees voluntarily and under zero duress choose to work for an organization it knows will not pay for certain things such as sterilization, contraception or abortifacients. In addition to the open employment market where they could have chosen to work somewhere else that would provide this coverage, there is an open market where they can either purchase supplemental insurance coverage that will pay for the above drugs or procedures or pay for these things with their own money without insurance. Their employer will not do anything to prevent them from either of these activities. The employer simply wishes not to be forced to provide these things themselves as they go against their religious convictions.

In your example, the law stops a coercive practice.

In this situation, the law codifies a brand new coercive practice.

In your example, a practice that crushed personal choice was abolished. One side got to choose, the other side got to submit, usually with no say in the matter.

In this situation, the law attempted to elevate one group's choice at the expense of another when leaving the law as it had been with the religious exemption would have maximized choice for the most people. The church could still choose to serve its community without being forced to violate its conscience and the employees still have the choice to work elsewhere, pay for these things with their own money or find other means to have them provided.

Now, stop making ignorant analogies.

Are all people who work at a Catholic hospital of the Catholic Faith?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

It doesn't matter. They are not being prevented from acquiring contraception, abortifacients or sterilization services by the Catholic organization. They just don't have the constitutional right to force the Catholic organization to pay for it.

Also, they volunteered to work there, knowing the church's stance on the issue. There are under no coercion to work for a Catholic organization.

I am a Christian. However, if I chose to work for a Muslim or Orthodox Jewish charity whose mission I believed in, and they provided a cafeteria for employees, it is not my right to force them to prepare and serve me pork or other non-kosher foods. I will either eat what is available that fits within their convictions on these matters or I will not eat the cafeteria food and will instead go purchase pork or other foods they can't in good conscience provide with my own money. This maximizes freedom of choice for both parties. They remain free to serve the community and their employees within the limits of their conscience and religious beliefs and I remain free to eat whatever foods I choose to eat on my own dime.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

[Tigermike 3,022]

dems don’t understand the core objection to the policy or at least they want to pretend they don't. It’s not the money, it’s the compulsion applied to the group to promote activity that it considers immoral as a matter of faith. Maybe they understand it just fine and that’s the real point of all this — to pressure religious holdouts into promoting contraception, however grudgingly, in order to remove any last lingering bits of stigma attached to it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

Knowing what JW's believe on such things, that would be a decision I would have to make prior to choosing to go work for them. If I knew their healthcare plan would not cover such things, I would figure out how much it would cost me to pay for that supplemental coverage myself or I would simply not go work for them if it cost too much. I do not have the right to force someone else to pay for things that I want that they believe are immoral or go against their religious beliefs. That's what the free exercise clause means, arnaldo.

[Tigermike 3,022]

This discussion proves one thing clearly. Liberal dems are dead set against personal choice. Everything should be dictated from the central government.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

From a 'progressive' Catholic that supported Obama:

"Religion is not something we only do on Sunday morning and do amongst ourselves....as Catholics, we believe helping the poor is part of our religious mission. Those who fret about Catholic hospitals operating in a pluralistic society should ask themselves why NARAL and Emily’s List have not opened any hospitals."

...Make no mistake about it – those who support denying Catholic institutions a more robust exemption have placed their commitment to pro-choice orthodoxy above their commitment to health care reform. Is that progressive? Is that something progressive Catholics, who fought so hard to pass the ACA, want to defend? It is time for so-called progressive Catholics to stop serving as chaplains to the political status quo and recognize a first principle when they see one. It is time for Catholics to insist that a conscience exemption that only applies to religion on Sunday and no help for the poor unless they are also Catholic is no conscience exemption at all. And, if the White House doesn’t see it that way, let them pay the political price for it.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/compromise-not-so-fast

[autigeremt 6,588]

Spot on! It's about principals, and that's the main issue here. The Constitution protects this and the Democrats created this mess because they don't believe in the U.S. Constitution as it stands today. Even Obama made mention of this last week in this interview with Lowher.

[Grumps 3,704]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

Does a Jehovah Witness think it is a sin for someone else to get a blood transfusion?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

Does a Jehovah Witness think it is a sin for someone else to get a blood transfusion?

I don't know that they do. They might. But even that wouldn't matter. If they believe it's a sin to get one or provide for someone else to get one, then they should not be forced to pay for it.

Not to mention, the comparison is absurd on another front. The blood transfusion is a potential life or death situation. Contraception is not.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

Does a Jehovah Witness think it is a sin for someone else to get a blood transfusion?

Do Catholic's believe it is a sin for a non Catholic to use birth control?

[Tigermike 3,022]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

Does a Jehovah Witness think it is a sin for someone else to get a blood transfusion?

Do Catholic's believe it is a sin for a non Catholic to use birth control?

It does not matter.

Here's a better couple of questions for you. Why does the far left think they have the right to dictate what the Catholic Church believes and does? Why are dimocrats wanting to tear the constitution apart?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

First, it's still irrelevant.

But to humor you, yes, the Catholic Church believes that artificial contraception, sterilization and abortion are intrinsic evils. This means they are wrong (sinful) for all people, not just Catholics.

But the relevant thing is that they believe that materially participating in the procurement of such things is also evil. That would mean doing things such as taking someone to get an abortion, paying for them to get contraception or sterilization and so on.

Forcing them to do so violates the 1st Amendment. Allowing you the freedom to procure such things through other means violates nothing.

[BamaGrad03 146]

And to me, its just such a weird hard line position for the Obama administration to take. Seriously, pick your battles dude.

In the grand scheme of things, this isn't a huge deal as it relates to overall healthcare, but it's a MASSIVE deal to Catholics. And what's the tradeoff? That they stop serving the community and help thousands fewer needy -- all because of the Democrats unyielding need to further push the sex/abortion/contraception envelope? And in this case only incrementally further...

It further underscores to me that the far left don't TRULY believe in your right to hold religious beliefs sacred. You can have your church and you can have your beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with whatever item is on our agenda today. The far left seems constantly vexed as to why anyone would oppose anything based on religious principle. As if religion to people is just something they have or do in the same manner that people drink coffee or like action movies.

The fact that Obama picked THIS battle to stand firm on, further proves that point. To him, it's not a big deal, and he doesn't understand why Catholics are making it a big deal. Similarly, abortion is no big deal to him. And he doesn't understand why people don't see unplanned children as a 'nuisance' and a burden to be dealt with in a sterile and efficient manner.

[Grumps 3,704]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

Does a Jehovah Witness think it is a sin for someone else to get a blood transfusion?

Do Catholic's believe it is a sin for a non Catholic to use birth control?

I think the answer is yes. That is why it may be relevant. If a Jehovah Witness does not think it is a sin for a non-jehovah Witness to receive a blood transfusion then the religion is not sinning by offering the procedure to its employees who are not Jehovah Witness. On the other hand, it the Catholic Church is required to supply abortifacients to non-Catholics they are still sinning according to their beliefs.

[BamaGrad03 146]

I didn't realize a mojority of Catholics supported the President's decision.

You also didn't realize that's irrelevant or that it depends on how you frame the question to them. The Catholic Church has the right to provide services to the community and its employees that are consistent with their long-held and clearly stated religious beliefs. It is a violation the 1st Amendment to force them to pay for or provide something that goes against that. It is not a violation of any consitutional right to allow people to procure desired goods or services through other means with their own money.

So if your employor is a devout Jehoviah Witness and you need a blood transfusion you are sol?

Does a Jehovah Witness think it is a sin for someone else to get a blood transfusion?

Do Catholic's believe it is a sin for a non Catholic to use birth control?

I think the answer is yes. That is why it may be relevant. If a Jehovah Witness does not think it is a sin for a non-jehovah Witness to receive a blood transfusion then the religion is not sinning by offering the procedure to its employees who are not Jehovah Witness. On the other hand, it the Catholic Church is required to supply abortifacients to non-Catholics they are still sinning according to their beliefs.

But the far left cares not about your beliefs. Their religion is their agenda be it economic, social, or environmental. And while they hold firm to their beliefs with a death tight grip, they are constantly flummoxed when you aren't willing to concede every belief that you hold dear to your heart.

[Tigermike 3,022]

And to me, its just such a weird hard line position for the Obama administration to take. Seriously, pick your battles dude.

Could be he/they were trying to 'fire up' their base and get them energized before the election. 'Protecting women's rights' and all.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Maybe Sean has "the tape"

What 'tape'? What the hell are you even talking about ? You drop these cutesy hints and insinuations as if you're clever or funny, and you're neither.

By all means, I invite you to share this little story you're having w/ yourself with the rest of us. Otherwise, go wander off into a corner and carry on.