Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[RunInRed 16,407]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

Told you.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

Told you.

Not really. It wasn't a reversal. More like some semantic sleight of hand.

[RunInRed 16,407]

Why Obama Health Care Rule on Contraception Angers Catholic Democrats

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/10/why-obama-health-care-rule-on-contraception-angers-catholic-democrats.html

Catholic Democrats are 'bailing' on Obama on birth control, eh?

Survey | Majority of Catholics Think Employers Should Be Required to Provide Health Care Plans that Cover Birth Control at No Cost

[TitanTiger 20,481]

It largely depends on how you frame the question to them. When it's framed as an "access to health care question" the numbers tend to favor the policy. When the access question is counterbalanced with a question of freedom of conscience, it swings the other direction. Also, digging into those numbers:

•Among Catholic voters, however, only 45% support this requirement, while 52% oppose it.

•Only about 4-in-10 (41%) white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 58% who oppose it.

Also of note, these were the numbers as of 5 days ago before it really blew up big time online (even among prominent Catholic ACA supporters) and in the press. I'd venture to say a balanced question asked right now would garner a much different response.

But as I said before, if this is the belief you guys are going to run with, that makes me happy. I think it will be to your detriment in the elections. I also fully expect it to be held up in court challenges with the eventual result being another smackdown by the SCOTUS.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Debate is about religious freedom, not birth control

John Kass

February 10, 2012

The way President Barack Obama has started a war with Roman Catholics, you might think Obama never set foot in a predominantly Catholic town like Chicago.

Even a lowly alderman would have played it smarter. And Obama is much smarter than some machine alderman. The man spent years at the feet of the machine lords, petitioning for their favor. And they're mostly Catholic. Didn't Obama learn anything?

Oh, he learned about playing the empty vessel to the yearning throngs of journalists and other mythmakers desperate for something secular to believe in. He endorsed the politicians they told him to endorse, he voted absentee rather than challenge authority and he climbed his ambition to power.

But then, recently, he decided to challenge the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. And his new policy to force religious hospitals and schools to offer abortion-inducing drugs and birth control in health care plans for employees is a clear violation of religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

It demonstrates to Americans that their government is not only willing but eager to dominate faith, by telling religions how to practice their beliefs. And if they refuse, then the faithful will feel the federal wrath.

So the president's policy is not only mistaken and insensitive and wrong, it is the perfect expression of everything Americans fear about the ever-increasing federal leviathan. (Unless that is you are one of the many adorers of Obama who defend everything he says and does.)

What we fear is a bureaucracy that by nature can consider neither soul nor sin, but only power and politics presented as reason.

Do Americans want access to contraceptives, and do some want abortion-inducing drugs? Of course, some do, and arguments have been made in support of such policy.

But should Catholic hospitals be forced by the federal government to provide such abortion-inducing drugs and other birth control in violation of faith?

Most Americans cringe at such a prospect. We see abusive federal power battering the church and we wonder, rightfully: What's next?

Naturally, Republicans will try to take advantage of this, but the problem is bigger than partisan politics. And the feeding of the federal leviathan isn't particular to Obama, as President George W. Bush and the No Child Left Behind Act proved to educators.

With great will and personal charm, Obama pushed through government-run health care. The problem was never with giving care to the needy. The problem was that this policy increased federal power. And now Americans are learning a terrible fact about what happens to freedom as federal authority grows. A line in a Wall Street Journal editorial makes this clear.

"When politics determines who can or should receive what benefits, and who pays what for it, government will use its force to dictate the outcomes that it wants — either for reasons of cost, or to promote its values, which in this case means that 'women's health' trumps religious conscience."

Obama has sent the spinners and town criers galloping out of the White House to say, incorrectly, that this debate is only about contraception. It is not. It was always about federal power trampling religious freedom, and now the White House is panicking.

That was evident last week at a prayer breakfast in Washington where he stressed how often he prays.

In a column last week titled "Obama see the light: Praise the Lord and pass the taxes," I poked fun at the public holiness of the political man. But that was sarcasm. Today I want to be clear.

Despite the president's proclamation of a few years ago that America is not a Christian nation, even Saul Alinsky would agree that this entire enterprise was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

And one central principle is that human beings are imperfect sinners (amazingly, even federal bureaucrats are imperfect), which means that the humans among us are in violation most of the time.

You wouldn't believe it from hearing politicians talk, since they're so right about everything, so sure of this policy or that policy, advocates on the political left and the right and the center, all quite certain they're correct.

But most of us aren't certain. I'm not. And I don't think you are either. The one thing we are certain about is that it is inevitable we'll violate the teachings or principles of our faith.

We're human. If we're not made of clay, we sure do act like it. Whatever our faith, we'll either ignore or deny our transgressions, or we'll acknowledge them and start walking on that hard road of repentance and atonement. Often we stray off that road when things get too steep. And most of us do all this in private, and that's where it belongs.

Americans understand this dialogue is between the individual and God, and that there's no room in there for the federal leviathan.

You and I can and do hold widely different views. But one thing we probably can agree on is that when we're in church or another house of worship, we know what we should be doing:

Sitting in the back pew, heads bowed, begging mercy for sins.

That's much better than puffing ourselves up and telling ourselves what's so right about what we did and what's so wrong about what the other fellow did.

But it's a private thing. And it is so very difficult.

So difficult, in fact, just about the last thing Americans need is some politician whispering in our ears, even if it is the president surrounded by a host of lawyers from Health and Human Services singing his praises.

I could be wrong, but I think there are some places even politics and government don't belong.

jskass@tribune.com

link

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Look, I get why, within the framework they see the world, liberals want contraception and related reproductive drugs and procedures covered in health care plans. In essense it's part and parcel to their view of health care as a right, a view with which I partially agree. But at the same time, certain rights are of such fundamental importance that they are enshrined directly into our Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion and its corollary, the free exercise of said religion, is one of those rights. It's up there with freedom of speech/expression, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right (protection) from unlawful search and seizure and so on.

What isn't enshrined into the Constitution is the right for someone else to pay for things that go against their religious views. As important as you might think this issue is, it is of less importance in our form of government and our Constitution than those things enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And this to me is the critical part that the administration and its supporters on this matter are not getting. They want to subordinate a right explicitly granted by our Constitution to a newly manufactured right that has not gone through the vigorous amendment process that our Bill of Rights and other amendments were subjected to.

And that is one reason why they will ultimately lose this argument in the courts.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

This would be how you properly word a question or series of questions that balances both viewpoints without minimizing either:

1. Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without co-payments or other charges to the patient?

3. The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/february_2012/questions_contraceptive_mandate_february_6_7_2012

And here are some interesting numbers from it:

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.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/08/rasmussen-majority-opposes-obama-contraception-mandate-on-religious-organizations/

Recall that Obama won 54% of Catholic voters in 2008 when taking in that number bolded toward the end.

This survey has the added bonus of being a more recent survey than the one RiR cited earlier.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

From center-left blogger Walter Russell Mead:

Insuring The Freedom of Conscience

by Walter Russell Mead

The White House made an unforced error this week, picking a fight with the Catholic Church that it could not win. Now it is in full damage control mode, looking for some kind of face saving compromise as it backs away from demands that would have forced Catholic schools and hospitals, among others, to offer insurance plans that cover birth control at no cost to employees.

It was the worst kind of political error: it makes the administration look like a bully and a coward. It united its enemies and divided its friends; the current rapid retreat will embitter its feminist allies much more than if the issue had never been raised.

Our health system and our education system benefit enormously from the Catholic Church’s longtime commitment to these fields. Having many participants with many different points of view and operating philosophies makes both our health and educational systems stronger and more flexible. And Catholic support for these institutions represents a net subsidy from the Church to the rest of the society, rather than the other way round.

Figuring out how to accommodate the special needs of Catholic and other faith based institutions so that they can make their fullest contribution to the common good is not a matter of political expediency. It’s a question of sound policy. A country with vibrant schools, hospitals, eldercare facilities and other social service institutions maintained and operated by religious groups is a stronger and better place than one in which all these responsibilities fall to the state.

The alarming thing about this week’s stumble isn’t the amateurism with which the whole miserable mess was handled; it’s the realization that a lot of people in the administration don’t understand the broader policy point.

Respecting the views of the bishops isn’t just about politics in November; it’s about good health care and good schools all year round. Let’s hope the White House keeps this in mind.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/02/10/insuring-the-freedom-of-conscience/

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Apparently others who were in the same boat as I was in terms of not voting for the GOP this fall are reconsidering after this latest foul-up from the Obama Administration:

Question: I voted for a hopeless 3rd-party yahoo in 2008, and I was fully prepared to do so again in 2012 rather than support whichever torture apologist wins the GOP nomination. But this battle has me reconsidering. In a principle-of-double-effect sort-of way, might it be OK to elect a GOPer just to stop this assault on the Church?

I’m conflicted and would be grateful for whatever light you can shine.

...I’m ruminating the same question. The Administration’s acts of naked warfare on civil liberty briefly made me wonder if it might be prudent to vote GOP, but when I contemplated the fact that the GOP was, in fact, the engine that drove the passage of the NDAA, I thought, “Nah. They are as enthused about transforming American into a police state as Obama.” A GOP Prez will not do one thing to undo Obama’s “gains” in eradicating civil rights or checks on a tyrannical executive. So since both parties were still gung ho for their preferred grave intrinsic evils, I saw no particular reason to support either.

Now, however, the Administration’s gratuitous and malice-filled war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church introduces a new wrinkle to the equation. We now have what I think is a real difference between the parties. The GOP is largely indifferent to the Church when the Church disagrees with it on matters like torture and just war. It makes use of the Church when it is convenient (yakking about abortion and family values while doing very little). But it has never taken a position of naked and open hostility with a view to crushing it.

For this reason, I am considering voting GOP this fall as the prudent action, because an America ruled by a corrupt party indifferent to the Church is better than an America ruled by a corrupt party that is actively seeking to crush the Church. I haven’t made up my mind (because I’m not sold that supporting pols who advocate grave evil is something I can justify). But the launch of Obama’s war on the Church seems to me to be a potential game-changer here. Give him four years to make war on the Church without hindrance and we may be very surprised at how little is left of the American Church by 2016. He means business and it is foolish to underestimate that.

So yeah: I am thinking about voting for whatever hairball the GOP barfs up, if only to keep Obama from enacting his full agenda of malice against what is, after all, the real central story here: the Church which is the saving sacrament of my people.

Hyperbole? Perhaps. I think he overestimates the degree to which Obama even at his worst could decimate the church in one term. But I think if Obama gets away with this, there's little else he wouldn't try in cramming the church back into it's stained glass box where it can't muck up his view of how society should operate.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Saw a poll that said 98% of women Catholics have used some type of birth control, but the Catholic hiearchy is all male?

If I am an insurance company: is it cheaper for me to cover birth control pills, say for 10 years or to pay for one,maybe to births during that 10 year period?

Food for thought

[TitanTiger 20,481]

None of that addresses the First Amendment concerns.

[Justin5 20]

I'm just disappointed in the Bishops. If 98% of American Catholics are using birth control those Bishops are doing a horrible job of teaching.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

I'm just disappointed in the Bishops. If 98% of American Catholics are using birth control those Bishops are doing a horrible job of teaching.

Well first of all, the figure is actually that 98% of American Catholic women have used birth control in their lifetime. But even that bring up questions that would need to be posed to the respondents:

1. Did this use of birth control happen before or after you became Catholic (ifdid not grow up in the church)?

2. Do you attend Sunday Mass every week unless impeded by a serious reasons such as illness or the care of infants, etc.?

3. Do you participate fully in the sacramental life of the Church?

4. If you are married, are you validly married in the Church?

5. If the answer to 2-4 is "yes," do you presently accept the Church's teaching against artificial contraception and avoid its use in all circumstances?

These sort of questions get at exactly who the "faithful" Catholics are vs people who are culturally Catholic or identify as Catholic because they were born into it but rarely attend services and so on.

This stat is sort of a fake nonsense stat tossed around absent context or any nuance whatsoever, but used as if it really means something. It doesn't. And it also doesn't address the fact that even though many Catholics disagree with the church's teaching on contraception, most of those same folks are aghast at the Obama Administration imposing their views onto the church and violating their religious freedom in this way.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I'm just disappointed in the Bishops. If 98% of American Catholics are using birth control those Bishops are doing a horrible job of teaching.

That 98% stat is incredibly misleading. 100% of Catholics have sinned. That doesn't mean the Catholic church is going to adjust its stance on a myriad of other things they view as wrong. Nor is it a realistic assertion that because its members have sinned, that they're doing a poor job of educating its members.

Secondarily, just because someone used contraception in the past, doesn't mean they still use it now.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Secondarily, just because someone used contraception in the past, doesn't mean they still use it now.

That's another consideration. Maybe someone attended Catholic Mass for years but lived whatever way they felt like with no regard for the Bible or the Church's teaching on dozens of things. But at some point they changed. Maybe it was an epiphany in college. Maybe it was when they became parents and they got more serious about their spiritual life. Before that change, they used contraception regularly. Since then, they are "faithful" Catholics and submit to the teaching of the church on all matters to the best of their ability. They would be one of the 98% in this nonsense stat. But it wouldn't accurately reflect anything.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Secondarily, just because someone used contraception in the past, doesn't mean they still use it now.

That's another consideration. Maybe someone attended Catholic Mass for years but lived whatever way they felt like with no regard for the Bible or the Church's teaching on dozens of things. But at some point they changed. Maybe it was an epiphany in college. Maybe it was when they became parents and they got more serious about their spiritual life. Before that change, they used contraception regularly. Since then, they are "faithful" Catholics and submit to the teaching of the church on all matters to the best of their ability. They would be one of the 98% in this nonsense stat. But it wouldn't accurately reflect anything.

Keep bending it

[TitanTiger 20,481]

If I put up a survey that showed that 96% of Democrats supported the Bush tax cuts, but then you found that half those folks have never voted in an election, another third voted Democrat only occasionally and that only about 10% of the bunch voted in state, local and national elections for Democrats, lobbied for Democratic initiatives or donated to Democratic causes, would you say that 96% figure meant anything at all?

Seriously arnaldo. Add something of value to a discussion or just go say senile crap somewhere else.

[MDM4AU 332]

Arnaldo has never been capable of contributing value to any discussion in this forum. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[TexasTiger 12,851]

Arnaldo has never been capable of contributing value to any discussion in this forum. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

A very broad, sweeping critique that is also unfair.

But that criticism could be leveled at many in this forum-- arguably, it is the political forum's distinguishing characteristic-- excessive verbosity with virtually no substance or objectivity. Yet, you only launch it at a person who often disagrees with you. Just be grateful he's generally brief. And if you can't be grateful for that, put him on "ignore."

[Tigermike 3,027]

Arnaldo has never been capable of contributing value to any discussion in this forum. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

A very broad, sweeping critique that is also unfair.

But that criticism could be leveled at many in this forum-- arguably, it is the political forum's distinguishing characteristic-- excessive verbosity with virtually no substance or objectivity. Yet, you only launch it at a person who often disagrees with you. Just be grateful he's generally brief. And if you can't be grateful for that, put him on "ignore."

On the opposite had I think it's safe to say your defense of arnaldoabru's posting is because you agree with him and feel a deep compulsion to mindlessly defend your far left Bud's.

[TexasTiger 12,851]

Arnaldo has never been capable of contributing value to any discussion in this forum. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

A very broad, sweeping critique that is also unfair.

But that criticism could be leveled at many in this forum-- arguably, it is the political forum's distinguishing characteristic-- excessive verbosity with virtually no substance or objectivity. Yet, you only launch it at a person who often disagrees with you. Just be grateful he's generally brief. And if you can't be grateful for that, put him on "ignore."

On the opposite had I think it's safe to say your defense of arnaldoabru's posting is because you agree with him and feel a deep compulsion to mindlessly defend your far left Bud's.

I'm not really following this thread, or most threads, that closely.

This forum has always had an overwhelming bias favorable to your views. I don't consider myself "far left," but I do find the reaction Arnaldoabru tends to elicit interesting and grossly hypocritical. And I suspect it just makes him chuckle.

[Grumps 3,704]

Arnaldo has never been capable of contributing value to any discussion in this forum. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

In fairness to arnaldo, I don't think he is incapable of contributing value. He/she does occasionally make a good point. I think it is a choice that he/she makes. I agree with Tex that there is no value in making a broad, sweeping negative personal attack. I will try to keep my negative attacks aimed at the comment, not at the person.

[MDM4AU 332]

A very broad, sweeping critique that is also unfair.

Thank you for your opinion. Got it filed next to "who gives a crap" and "wasted your time."

But that criticism could be leveled at many in this forum-- arguably, it is the political forum's distinguishing characteristic-- excessive verbosity with virtually no substance or objectivity. Yet, you only launch it at a person who often disagrees with you. Just be grateful he's generally brief. And if you can't be grateful for that, put him on "ignore."

Yes it could. Very true. Probably so. Very thankful. Might just do it.

Furthermore, I might suggest the ignore button for you as well when it comes to my posts and how I feel. As for launching into a person you often disagree with, I have no doubt you have picked up my slack on those I tend to agree with so it's a wash there.

[TexasTiger 12,851]

A very broad, sweeping critique that is also unfair.

Thank you for your opinion. Got it filed next to "who gives a crap" and "wasted your time."

But that criticism could be leveled at many in this forum-- arguably, it is the political forum's distinguishing characteristic-- excessive verbosity with virtually no substance or objectivity. Yet, you only launch it at a person who often disagrees with you. Just be grateful he's generally brief. And if you can't be grateful for that, put him on "ignore."

Yes it could. Very true. Probably so. Very thankful. Might just do it.

Furthermore, I might suggest the ignore button for you as well when it comes to my posts and how I feel. As for launching into a person you often disagree with, I have no doubt you have picked up my slack on those I tend to agree with so it's a wash there.

If you aren't already ignoring me, have a great day!

[MDM4AU 332]

A very broad, sweeping critique that is also unfair.

Thank you for your opinion. Got it filed next to "who gives a crap" and "wasted your time."

But that criticism could be leveled at many in this forum-- arguably, it is the political forum's distinguishing characteristic-- excessive verbosity with virtually no substance or objectivity. Yet, you only launch it at a person who often disagrees with you. Just be grateful he's generally brief. And if you can't be grateful for that, put him on "ignore."

Yes it could. Very true. Probably so. Very thankful. Might just do it.

Furthermore, I might suggest the ignore button for you as well when it comes to my posts and how I feel. As for launching into a person you often disagree with, I have no doubt you have picked up my slack on those I tend to agree with so it's a wash there.

If you aren't already ignoring me, have a great day!

Now, Tex, I wouldn't ignore you. While I disagree with you on many things, you actually bring substance to discussions. Unlike arnaldo...