Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[TitanTiger 20,472]

You may be right on sticking to a tighter timeline on Iraq. That's to his credit. The overreach is in relation to our civil rights the domestic efforts are violating. That's status quo.

Perry is an idiot. Best quote I saw on him is that he is the SNL version of George W. Bush. I wouldn't have voted for him at all.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Funny that the teabaggers didn't feel this threat to the Constitution when over 20 states had this policy.

Funny that you're so factually challenged.

First as has been stated, everyone of those states, including the ones with the strictest policies, allowed organizations who self-insured to opt out. The other states all had other workarounds that allowed the religious organizations to avoid violating their consciences on this matter. None of these provisions were in the federal version.

Second, as has also been stated if you would read, it's not all that easy to keep up with what a state other than your own is doing unless you are an extremely vigilant person. I couldn't tell you 99% or more of the specific things going on in states that border us, much less ones in other areas of the country. But this is federal law. It affects everyone. That is why you're much more likely to get a reaction than some patchwork of differing state laws would.

iT only concerned the baggers when President Obama became involved

[TitanTiger 20,472]

It concerned everyone when it affected everyone. Wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH.

[RunInRed 16,381]

I've patiently tried to keep up with this thread and still don't get the outcry. OK, maybe I get the noise but the hyperbole around 'religious liberty' and shredding the Bill of Rights is where you lose me. As was pointed out pretty well above, I don't see how offering birth control as part of a health care plan makes your life any poorer. You still have freedom to choose as you see fit. So clearing through all that clutter, the argument basically comes down to dollars ... i.e., some are concerned they would be first to have to 'pay' for something they don't believe in. Well, I'm pretty sure my employer-provided insurance offers coverage resulting from things I don't necessarily endorse either ... again, I don't get the outcry.

Side note for Titan - I'd like to see more concrete data on where torture has continued under Obama.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I've patiently tried to keep up with this thread and still don't get the outcry. OK, maybe I get the noise but the hyperbole around 'religious liberty' and shredding the Bill of Rights is where you lose me. As was pointed out pretty well above, I don't see how offering birth control as part of a health care plan makes your life any poorer. You still have freedom to choose as you see fit. So clearing through all that clutter, the argument basically comes down to dollars ... i.e., some are concerned they would be first to have to 'pay' for something they don't believe in. Well, I'm pretty sure my employer-provided insurance offers coverage resulting from things I don't necessarily endorse either ... again, I don't get the outcry.

Side note for Titan - I'd like to see more concrete data on where torture has continued under Obama.

It's not about "making my life poorer" except in the sense that when government decides to curtail the free exercise of religion over something like this, we're all poorer for it. That isn't hyperbole. You're telling the largest religion in the country that if they wish to serve the broader community in any way, they have to leave their faith behind in a box. It's only for Sundays, but the rest of the week they have to violate their religion.

If you leave the law as it has been where Catholic organizations can retain their freedom of conscience by not forcing them to materially participate in something they find morally wrong, no one has lost freedom. People are still free to procure and use contraceptives. There are myriad options for getting this for relatively cheap. They just don't force someone else to get it for them. It's not about the money, it's about forced participation in a morally objectionable act. And again, you're talking less than 1% of the working population here who work in these organizations and they freely CHOSE to go work for them knowing their stance on these issues. The Constitution enshrines the right to freedom of conscience embodied in the free exercise clause. It does not enshrine the right to force someone else to give you contraceptives. This is Constitution 101 stuff. Whether you think it should be a big deal or not isn't really relevant. It IS a big deal because of this very distinction.

I'll get back to you on the side note. Don't have time at the moment to pull the links.

[cptau 169]

The rendition program has been continued by Obama. Probably the main reason Eric holder dropped his effort to prosecute CIA personnel for so called torture activities during the bush administration.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TzfJq655mSM

[Tigermike 3,023]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In the bazaaro world the libs inhabit the 1st amendment only applies when there is a Christian running as a Republican. Then they get their collective panties bunched up worrying about religion being pushed on them. Now that it is reversed and the far left dems Muslim president is trying to run rough shod over a Christian church, all is well.

[arnaldoabru 11]

It concerned everyone when it affected everyone. Wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH.

That's a lie and you know it

[Tigermike 3,023]

It concerned everyone when it affected everyone. Wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH.

That's a lie and you know it

Go on, go on, you want to call him a racist. Go ahead and do it.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

That isn't hyperbole. You're telling the largest religion in the country that if they wish to serve the broader community in any way, they have to leave their faith behind in a box. It's only for Sundays, but the rest of the week they have to violate their religion.

I think Red and I may be seeing the two sentences right after "That isn't hyperbole" as hyperbole.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

The rendition program has been continued by Obama. Probably the main reason Eric holder dropped his effort to prosecute CIA personnel for so called torture activities during the bush administration.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TzfJq655mSM

Thanks for those links. The first one refutes the notion that everything is status quo under Obama. The second one seems to indicate that one bit of information may have been obtained years before under Bush through "harsh interrogation," but doesn't indicate that Obama is torturing.

[au2004ece 30]

Here's my rundown on just the Bill of Rights issues:

I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition - evidenced by the recent 9-0 SCOTUS decision and this contraceptive mandate.

Did Obama accept that decision? Do you think he actually weighed in this case in the first place?

IV. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure - this began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Do you think Congress is willing to change this part of the act? Would a Republican President?

VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. - also began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Ditto?

VII. Right to a trial by jury - same as the last two.

Ditto?

VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment - same as last two, plus Obama's continuation of the use of torture.

Ditto? Where is torture employed? By whom?

In some portions of the middle three, he made things worse by signing the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the executive branch unheard of power to detain and prosecute citizens.

Why did he sign that act? Who passed it? Would a Republican President have signed it?

You are right that republicans and democrats are equally destroying our constitution. That's why everyone should be voting for Ron Paul.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

It concerned everyone when it affected everyone. Wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH.

That's a lie and you know it

No it's not a lie. You're just too dense to realize that some people actually do have principles that don't blow like a dandelion in the wind.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

That isn't hyperbole. You're telling the largest religion in the country that if they wish to serve the broader community in any way, they have to leave their faith behind in a box. It's only for Sundays, but the rest of the week they have to violate their religion.

I think Red and I may be seeing the two sentences right after "That isn't hyperbole" as hyperbole.

But it's not. This is in essence what has happened here:

The Catholic Church, out of it's firm belief in serving their community and world, decides to open a hospital (for instance). People who need hospital care wonder, "Is this only for Catholics or can you help me also?" The Catholics say, "We will help anyone in need of medical care, but we won't do abortions or sterilizations as those violate our beliefs." Doctors, nurses and other workers wonder, "Do you only employ Catholics or can I work here?" The Catholics say, "Anyone with the proper skills who wishes to join us in this mission to the community is welcome to work with us. And we have a healthcare plan, but it doesn't cover some things like contraceptives and such that we find morally wrong. But it will cover most everything else." The people agree to come and work there and be served there.

Then along comes the government and says, "Sorry, if you're going to be so nice as to serve everyone and not just your own kind and employ anyone who qualifies and wants a job and not just your own kind, you will need to sacrifice your moral beliefs and sin against your conscience. Otherwise, shut the doors except to Catholics and fire all the non-Catholics that work there. Thanks for nothing."

In other words, your faith is fine for Sundays and explicit worship settings. But keep it to yourself. You cannot let it affect how you do your work or live your lives Monday through Saturday. When you decided that you wanted to be welcoming to all, we get to dictate to you which beliefs you're allowed to keep following.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

That isn't hyperbole. You're telling the largest religion in the country that if they wish to serve the broader community in any way, they have to leave their faith behind in a box. It's only for Sundays, but the rest of the week they have to violate their religion.

I think Red and I may be seeing the two sentences right after "That isn't hyperbole" as hyperbole.

But it's not. This is in essence what has happened here:

The Catholic Church, out of it's firm belief in serving their community and world, decides to open a hospital (for instance). People who need hospital care wonder, "Is this only for Catholics or can you help me also?" The Catholics say, "We will help anyone in need of medical care, but we won't do abortions or sterilizations as those violate our beliefs." Doctors, nurses and other workers wonder, "Do you only employ Catholics or can I work here?" The Catholics say, "Anyone with the proper skills who wishes to join us in this mission to the community is welcome to work with us. And we have a healthcare plan, but it doesn't cover some things like contraceptives and such that we find morally wrong. But it will cover most everything else." The people agree to come and work there and be served there.

Then along comes the government and says, "Sorry, if you're going to be so nice as to serve everyone and not just your own kind and employ anyone who qualifies and wants a job and not just your own kind, you will need to sacrifice your moral beliefs and sin against your conscience. Otherwise, shut the doors except to Catholics and fire all the non-Catholics that work there. Thanks for nothing."

In other words, your faith is fine for Sundays and explicit worship settings. But keep it to yourself. You cannot let it affect how you do your work or live your lives Monday through Saturday. When you decided that you wanted to be welcoming to all, we get to dictate to you which beliefs you're allowed to keep following.

Sorry, but I see more hyperbole here.

In other words, your faith is fine for Sundays and explicit worship settings. But keep it to yourself. You cannot let it affect how you do your work or live your lives Monday through Saturday. When you decided that you wanted to be welcoming to all, we get to dictate to you which beliefs you're allowed to keep following.

Not true. If they believe this:

"We will help anyone in need of medical care, but we won't do abortions or sterilizations as those violate our beliefs."

They are not required to act contrary to their beliefs. But a standardized medical plan gives individual employees options that they choose in their private lives. If the government were making Catholic hospitals provide abortions, you'd have a great argument. But they're not. The folks running the hospital run it exactly as they wish. But the workers get to make their private decisions in private. The employer can impart their beliefs to their employees, 7 days a week, have a chapel in the hospital, 7 days a week, have prayers before every procedure, even Monday through Saturday, if they wish.

You don't like the compromise, even though the church related organization is no longer paying for it. But this shift to the insurance companies is not likely to be seen as a big deal by them:

That view was echoed by Wendell Potter, former top spokesman for insurer Cigna Corp who is now an industry critic.

"Providing contraception, even for free, is cost-effective for insurers so I don't think they'll balk," he said, adding it could even save them money in the long run.

It doesn't really even "shift costs," because having birth control lowers the cost of providing insurance for the companies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/11/us-usa-contraceptives-aetna-idUSTRE8191ON20120211

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Sorry, but I see more hyperbole here.

In other words, your faith is fine for Sundays and explicit worship settings. But keep it to yourself. You cannot let it affect how you do your work or live your lives Monday through Saturday. When you decided that you wanted to be welcoming to all, we get to dictate to you which beliefs you're allowed to keep following.

Not true. If they believe this:

"We will help anyone in need of medical care, but we won't do abortions or sterilizations as those violate our beliefs."

They are not required to act contrary to their beliefs. But a standardized medical plan gives individual employees options that they choose in their private lives. If the government were making Catholic hospitals provide abortions, you'd have a great argument. But they're not. The folks running the hospital run it exactly as they wish. But the workers get to make their private decisions in private. The employer can impart their beliefs to their employees, 7 days a week, have a chapel in the hospital, 7 days a week, have prayers before every procedure, even Monday through Saturday, if they wish.

It's not a "standardized medical plan." It's a plan that employers work together with insurance companies to negotiate what their coverages will be and how much the company will pay for it. In in many cases, these Catholic organizations are self-insured. They'd still be forced to add this coverage.

The workers still get to make private decisions in private. No one is taking that right from them. They can contact the insurance company and add a supplemental rider. They can purchase contraception from various women's health clinics. There are myriad options for them. They've haven't lost any freedom in this scenario. The Church has. You are now forcing them to pay for something they find morally wrong. There's really nothing in that reasoning that would preclude the gov't from coming back later and saying "sterilization and abortions are "standardized" healthcare for women and by not providing those things you are discriminating. Either provide these services in your hospital or close the doors."

You seem to be under some mistaken notion that unless ALL of their religious beliefs are violated, they still have free exercise of religion.

You don't like the compromise, even though the church related organization is no longer paying for it. But this shift to the insurance companies is not likely to be seen as a big deal by them:

That's because it was semantics. The plan the Church mostly pays for now has to include contraception. Plus, if the Church self-insures, they have to add it. You're not thinking very deeply on this and just kneejerking in support of a Democrat it seems to me.

And I stand by my earlier prediction: this overreach by the administration will go down in flames in the courts. They won't buy the shell game either.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Sorry, but I see more hyperbole here.

In other words, your faith is fine for Sundays and explicit worship settings. But keep it to yourself. You cannot let it affect how you do your work or live your lives Monday through Saturday. When you decided that you wanted to be welcoming to all, we get to dictate to you which beliefs you're allowed to keep following.

Not true. If they believe this:

"We will help anyone in need of medical care, but we won't do abortions or sterilizations as those violate our beliefs."

They are not required to act contrary to their beliefs. But a standardized medical plan gives individual employees options that they choose in their private lives. If the government were making Catholic hospitals provide abortions, you'd have a great argument. But they're not. The folks running the hospital run it exactly as they wish. But the workers get to make their private decisions in private. The employer can impart their beliefs to their employees, 7 days a week, have a chapel in the hospital, 7 days a week, have prayers before every procedure, even Monday through Saturday, if they wish.

It's not a "standardized medical plan." It's a plan that employers work together with insurance companies to negotiate what their coverages will be and how much the company will pay for it. In in many cases, these Catholic organizations are self-insured. They'd still be forced to add this coverage.

The workers still get to make private decisions in private. No one is taking that right from them. They can contact the insurance company and add a supplemental rider. They can purchase contraception from various women's health clinics. There are myriad options for them. They've haven't lost any freedom in this scenario. The Church has. You are now forcing them to pay for something they find morally wrong. There's really nothing in that reasoning that would preclude the gov't from coming back later and saying "sterilization and abortions are "standardized" healthcare for women and by not providing those things you are discriminating. Either provide these services in your hospital or close the doors."

You seem to be under some mistaken notion that unless ALL of their religious beliefs are violated, they still have free exercise of religion.

You don't like the compromise, even though the church related organization is no longer paying for it. But this shift to the insurance companies is not likely to be seen as a big deal by them:

That's because it was semantics. The plan the Church mostly pays for now has to include contraception. Plus, if the Church self-insures, they have to add it. You're not thinking very deeply on this and just kneejerking in support of a Democrat it seems to me.

And I stand by my earlier prediction: this overreach by the administration will go down in flames in the courts. They won't buy the shell game either.

I don't think I'm being knee-jerk in defense if I don't find it problematic to begin with. My primary point is not with your disagreement per se, but the hyperbolic way you frame it. But do you at least see why statements like this, even though you see genuine violation of religious freedom, might be seen as over-the-top?

In other words, your faith is fine for Sundays and explicit worship settings. But keep it to yourself. You cannot let it affect how you do your work or live your lives Monday through Saturday.

[Tigermike 3,023]

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Semantics at the Highest Level

Consider these two policies:

A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.

Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.

link

It isn’t really a puzzle. The Obama administration thinks the rest of us are idiots; and, with respect to most of their voters, they may not be far off the mark.

[Tigermike 3,023]

I came across this piece and found it interesting. I will only post a little of the article. If you want to read more here is the link.

American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

Paul A. Rahe · Feb. 10 at 5:21pm

In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:

Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.

This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, “to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything,” he added, "it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion – that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle.” In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.

[arnaldoabru 11]

It concerned everyone when it affected everyone. Wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH.

That's a lie and you know it

Go on, go on, you want to call him a racist. Go ahead and do it.

Rrrrrrrr........ omney

[Grumps 3,704]

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama Concerning Recent Tyranny

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Marc

Dear Mr. President,

I am fully aware that these are days in which the federal government is — for all practical purposes — unlimited in its power. As it stands, you — sir — can detain any American citizen without due process simply because you suspect him of being a terrorist, you have magically managed to become the Chairman of the UN Security Council without the approval of Congress — despite that awkward Article 1.9 of the Constitution — and you — along with the FCC — seem to think the Internet is thine to regulate. Now I’m sure this sudden growth in power was seen as necessary, proper and really-cool by all of your staff, and thus I join in with their applause (but with those annoying, ironically-spaced claps that continue long after everyone else has finished.)

For there are those of us — yes, even a few of your happy-happy youth voters — who are curious as to whether the Constitution continues to mean anything at all. I distinctly recall holding it as a weapon against injustice, but I am now taught to regard it with a vague sort of embarrassment, as a pubescent boy might regard his grandmother on Facebook, who comments on his attempts to attract a girl with things like “just remember chastity!”

It makes the radical claim — this Constitution — that “Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion…” a claim which your administration has adhered to. But as it turns out, you cannot have the first part of this Establishment Clause without the second part, that is: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Similarly, you cannot take your wife “in health” without that aggravating precursor “in sickness”.) You are not allowed to establish a state religion, and you are not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion. You. just. can’t.

Otherwise, you are a Tyrant. Now, I know: Tyrant? (Quick, label the man an ultra-super-neo-conservative Tea Partier and ban him to the ranks of old men holding Ayn Rand signs so we don’t have to engage in rational debate.)

I am 18.

I own a Macbook, a blog and a sweater-vest.

I don’t even like Capitalism.

So do me the courtesy of taking me seriously. Being a tyrant is not necessarily a negative or positive thing, though I know the word is loaded with a not-so-nice connotation. It is simply a matter of definition. A tyrant, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”. If you prohibit the free exercise of religion, you are acting unrestrained by the Constitution, and thus as a tyrant. End of story.

In case there are any doubts as to my claim, I will give it to you straight: I hold that you are prohibiting the free practice of Catholicism in this country, and that you are thus, categorically speaking, a tyrant.

What would prohibiting the free exercise of religion consist of? Obviously, it might consist of banning a certain religious practice. A man might forbid the Jews their practice of circumcision. But it is equally true that the free exercise of religion would be prohibited by a man forcing the Jews to eat bacon. Both moves would be dick-moves: The free exercise of religion is violated both by what you take away from a religion, and by what you force a religion to do. If members of a religion are forced by the government to perform actions contrary to their beliefs, they are no more free than dogs.

Catholicism, an antiquated, dying religion without many members — oh, snap, wait, I meant the largest form of Christianity in America and the largest religion in the world — teaches that the use of artificial contraception and sterilization is wrong, and thus does not allow its institutions to provide it. Here’s where everyone flips out and loses sight of the argument, so let me be absolutely clear: I am not arguing that the use of artificial contraception is wrong. I do believe this, and firmly, but this is neither the time nor place to argue the point.

In fact, it would be best for all of us — Catholics included — to think of this particular Catholic teaching as silly, overbearing, and unfit for the modern mind to contain. Think of this teaching as you might think of the Jewish prohibition on pork, or the Hindu’s holding of the cow as sacred. Why? Because prohibiting the free exercise of religion does not become allowed in cases in which you happen to disagree with the religion, no matter how vehemently, unless that religion is directly violating an individual’s rights.

For instance, I disagree with the belief of Quakers, who will under no circumstances fight in a war. My disagreement does not give me leave — were I in a position of power — to force them to fight. Appropriately, the government respects the Quakers’ belief, as the government respects all conscientious objectors.

So why is it that the government is allowed to force Catholic institutions – including my school — to provide coverage for artificial contraception in their health insurance plans, as the US Health and Human Services have mandated them do by the end of the year? How is this anything but the prohibition of the free exercise of religion? Short answer: It is the prohibition of the free exercise of religion, and a despicable, unconstitutional, entirely illegal, embarrassingly heavy-handed and very, very stupid prohibition at that. I will run briefly through the arguments in its favor:

But it is necessary. Women need contraception.

There is no argument from necessity here: According to the 2010 Guttmacher Institute report on contraceptive use in the United States, “Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives,” and Kathleen Sebelius herself pointed out that even when contraceptive is not covered, “contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support,” not to mention pharmacies and doctor’s offices. And besides, women do not need contraception. I understand an employer being obligated to cover drugs relating to health. I do not understand why employer’s are obligated to provide for drugs that grant people responsibility-free pleasure. Again, I am not arguing whether or not sex-without-consequences is good or bad, I am merely pointing out that it is not necessary.

Just don’t take them yourself.

One cannot make the argument that while Catholics have the right to choose not to take artificial contraception personally, they should not be allowed to withhold artificial contraception from others any more than one could make the argument that while Jews don’t have to eat pork personally, their restaurants must serve the meat. No man is obligated to give another man what he believes is morally repulsive, unless his not giving it interferes with the rights of the other.

Well then, not providing free contraception violates the rights of women!

No it doesn’t. Not only can women get contraception elsewhere, but there exists utterly no “right to contraception.” And why would there be? I know our world is idiotic and sexist to the point of the embarrassing belief that women cannot prevent pregnancy without pills, but as it turns out, they can. In fact, if you’re a woman reading this, chances are you’re preventing pregnancy right now. (If not, rethink your sex life.) Thus a health-care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not damn women to pregnancy — oh, the horror — any more than not providing diet-pills would damn them to obesity.

But everyone has to do it!

No they don’t. Ed Whelan, over at the National Review Online, notes that “employers who employed fewer than 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year are not obligated to make any health-care insurance coverage available to their employees under Obamacare. 26 U.S.C. § 4980H©(2). Like employers with grandfathered plans, they thus have no obligation to provide insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients, and they face no penalty for not doing so.” The government is acknowledging that there isn’t a striking necessity for contraceptive coverage, certainly not enough of a necessity to force smaller companies to cover contraceptives. Why the mad rush to force Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives then? Why is it okay for small companies with no opinion in the matter to continue not providing contraception, while institutions that absolutely and morally reject the use of contraception must? An excess of stupid? An agenda?

Now I’m sure more objections could be raised, but the Internet is short, and I must be brief. Therefore:

Mr. President, The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan noted that ‎”The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.” This injustice is not something that need solely concern the Catholic Church — if the federal government can force Catholics to act against their consciences, they can force anyone to act against their conscience, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Atheist, and by the same pitiful reasoning.

Mr. President, take it back.

Yours Truly,

Marc Barnes, student and citizen.

I finally got around to reading this letter. It is very well done. Thanks for posting.

[arnaldoabru 11]

This has been EEOC policy for years. Why didn't George W Bush do anything about this infringment on religious freedom? I checked the Political Forums history for the outrage during W 's presidency over this. Titan or Tmike did not have one post.

[arnaldoabru 11]

This has been EEOC policy for years. Why didn't George W Bush do anything about this infringment on religious freedom? I checked the Political Forums history for the outrage during W 's presidency over this. Titan or Tmike did not have one post.

Oh, the outrage now though......

[Tigermike 3,023]

This has been EEOC policy for years. Why didn't George W Bush do anything about this infringment on religious freedom? I checked the Political Forums history for the outrage during W 's presidency over this. Titan or Tmike did not have one post.

Well why don't you start another thread about that right now.

Oh and I checked the history of you, Tex & RR's outrage over Obama's horrendous, humongous, outlandish budget deficits and couldn't find a single post.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

This has been EEOC policy for years. Why didn't George W Bush do anything about this infringment on religious freedom? I checked the Political Forums history for the outrage during W 's presidency over this. Titan or Tmike did not have one post.

Well why don't you start another thread about that right now.

Oh and I checked the history of you, Tex & RR's outrage over Obama's horrendous, humongous, outlandish budget deficits and couldn't find a single post.

I'm outraged that Republicans keep insisting on ridiculously low tax rates for the wealthy, low cap gains rates, the elimination of estate taxes and profilgate defense spending in face of budget crisis. How's that? Knowledgeable folks know the biggest reason for the increased deficits under Obama isn't increase spending, but reduced revenue from the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. That includes very few Republicans, apparently.

Now, arnaldo's post was on topic-- yours was not. So why don't you follow your own advice and start a thread about it?