Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[autigeremt 6,652]

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

Oh do I? Maybe I just refuse to believe that certain sects get to ram-rod their personal religious beliefs down the throats of us all. Much less, use them to shape public policy. Chicken. Egg.

In what way are they ramming anything down anyone's throat? Let me list the ways in which exempting them from this requirement doesn't do exactly that:

1. It takes away no one's freedom to procure or use contraceptives, have sterilizations done or get abortifacients like the morning after pill or ella, including the Catholic organization's own employees.

2. It forces no company or organization that is secular in nature or even of any other religion to adopt the same policy toward these services.

3. It forces no insurance company to stop offering these services to other customers.

4. It does not mandate that the government remove this requirement from non-religious organizations.

5. It does not prevent the government itself from providing free contraceptives, sterilizations or abortifacients to every woman who wants them free of charge.

6. It does not prevent NARAL, Emily's List, NOW, Planned Parenthood of America or a thousand other pro-choice and women's health groups from banding together to provide free or low cost contraceptives to women in these exempted organizations.

I could go on and on about the ways in which the Catholic church is not ram-rodding a damn thing down anyone's throat. I don't know how you get the idea that allowing the Catholic church and its organizations to opt out of this requirement (particularly those who self-insure which all of you on the other side of this have yet to address), which might affect something like .001% of the population and still doesn't prevent them from obtaining these things through other means that don't require the Catholic organization to materially participate in it, forces their beliefs on other people. In fact, the opposite is happening with this rule. You and others who support and push this are forcing your beliefs on the Church and then acting like they are crazy to think that it really isn't up to you to tell them when their beliefs and consciences are being violated.

Public policy gets shaped by the parameters of our Constitution. It isn't being shaped by the Church except in the sense that they have a legal, Consitutional objection to this power grab.

:thumbsup:

[autigeremt 6,652]

I have a question for you, RIR. Why does ObamaCare exclude Amish from the law? According to the Constitution, no religious organization can be excluded from a law when others are not.

[Tigermike 3,040]

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

Oh do I? Maybe I just refuse to believe that certain sects get to ram-rod their personal religious beliefs down the throats of us all. Much less, use them to shape public policy. Chicken. Egg.

Yet the dems and this POTUS was all to willing to accept the Catholic Church's support for OBAMACARE. The American Catholic bishops wanted universal healthcare so they helped drum up support.

That's where the Catholic Church has lost the moral high ground. They support the dems social agenda almost carte-blanche. Now Obama says thank you but we are pushing for more power and need support from women and this 'issue' might just be the ticket to rouse up some of the masses.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

Religious beliefs are not a defense is denying medical care for a minor.

[Tigermike 3,040]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

Religious beliefs are not a defense is denying medical care for a minor.

Who did that and what does it have to do with this discussion?

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think he's saying that since the government now views pregnancy as a disease, you can no longer abstain from contraception due to religious reasons. Obama is going to force everyone to take birth control so to not have our nations women saddled with the inconvenience of child bearing.

[autigeremt 6,652]

I think he's saying that since the government now views pregnancy as a disease, you can no longer abstain from contraception due to religious reasons. Obama is going to force everyone to take birth control so to not have our nations women saddled with the inconvenience of child bearing.

And to create a situation where minorties have the upper hand down the road, until people with dependency can rule over the land and keep the Democrats in power.

[Grumps 3,704]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

Religious beliefs are not a defense is denying medical care for a minor.

If that is the law then my opinion is in disagreement with the law. If that is your opinion then I respect it and can certainly understand how you would feel that way.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

Religious beliefs are not a defense is denying medical care for a minor.

If that is the law then my opinion is in disagreement with the law. If that is your opinion then I respect it and can certainly understand how you would feel that way.

That is the law. Isn't it an infringement on someone's religious freedom?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

Religious beliefs are not a defense is denying medical care for a minor.

Who did that and what does it have to do with this discussion?

I thought we were talking about how the law infringes on someone's religious freedom? Catholics don't beleive in birth control, therefore making them cover an employee's infringes on their religious beliefs?

[Grumps 3,704]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

Religious beliefs are not a defense is denying medical care for a minor.

If that is the law then my opinion is in disagreement with the law. If that is your opinion then I respect it and can certainly understand how you would feel that way.

That is the law. Isn't it an infringement on someone's religious freedom?

I believe that you are incorrect about that being the law. I think it varies somewhat by state and by other matters. Feel free to prove me wrong.

If that is the law then I believe it that it could be an infringement on someone's religious freedom. As we know it is a complicated issue. The problem is that if there is a lawsuit, the judge will be forced to allow treatment while the matter is being litigated since failure to do so may result in death of the child, which would make the rest of the trial somewhat pointless.

Some people believe that their beliefs are more important than their lives.

By the way, are you trying to make the point that "if the government allows the trampling of one's religious freedom in this instance then it is okay to trample it in other instances also?" That would not be a very good argument.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

Religious beliefs are not a defense is denying medical care for a minor.

If that is the law then my opinion is in disagreement with the law. If that is your opinion then I respect it and can certainly understand how you would feel that way.

That is the law. Isn't it an infringement on someone's religious freedom?

I believe that you are incorrect about that being the law. I think it varies somewhat by state and by other matters. Feel free to prove me wrong.

If that is the law then I believe it that it could be an infringement on someone's religious freedom. As we know it is a complicated issue. The problem is that if there is a lawsuit, the judge will be forced to allow treatment while the matter is being litigated since failure to do so may result in death of the child, which would make the rest of the trial somewhat pointless.

Some people believe that their beliefs are more important than their lives.

By the way, are you trying to make the point that "if the government allows the trampling of one's religious freedom in this instance then it is okay to trample it in other instances also?" That would not be a very good argument.

No, it would be the consistant one.

[RunInRed 16,438]

The only reason the numbers are meaningless are because you don't like what they tell us. So are there really caveats or is this your justification of the data? Spin your response any way you like...

No, they are meaningless because they lack context or specifics. Just like the hypothetical "96% of Democrats support the Bush Tax Cuts!" poll I mentioned before, if you don't have specifics on who exactly comprises this supposed group of "Democrats" or "Catholics", the numbers don't tell you anything that really matters.

You keep being evasive and not dealing with this simple reality that I know you would agree with were that Democrat poll a real one.

But that's the thing. These polls just aren't partisan polls. In fact, I have yet to see one poll to support the narrative you keep weaving. Again, give us some counter evidence because every thing I've seen says the public, of all parties and all religions, are supportive of Obama's position.

I'm not talking about whether it's a partisan poll or not. I'm talking about some generic, self-described "Catholic" label on people that doesn't have any specifics. They simply ask if someone's Catholic but don't give us any idea if they are saying that because that's the church they were baptized in but haven't attended for 30 years, whether they are there every time the doors open or what. That matters. Just like saying someone is a Democrat that almost never votes in elections or supports any Democratic causes doesn't really tell you what the mind of Democrats really is.

I'm not putting forth a narrative, I'm pointing out the shoddiness of the polls.

If that's your position, just be consistent in your outrage - broad labeling is nothing new to polling.

[RunInRed 16,438]

Let me be clear on my position - I would have no problem with an 'opt-out' clause although, it is a little problematic bc of the slippery slope. Once you make exceptions for one group...

But what I would have more of a problem with us a wholesale change to policy that prevents coverage for others bc of the Catholic Church's position on this issue.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Let me be clear on my position - I would have no problem with an 'opt-out' clause although, it is a little problematic bc of the slippery slope. Once you make exceptions for one group...

But what I would have more of a problem with us a wholesale change to policy that prevents coverage for others bc of the Catholic Church's position on this issue.

Do you think it is constitutional to force private citizens to pay for other citizens contraceptives? (I'm not limiting it to the church -- just in general).

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Let me be clear on my position - I would have no problem with an 'opt-out' clause although, it is a little problematic bc of the slippery slope. Once you make exceptions for one group...

But what I would have more of a problem with us a wholesale change to policy that prevents coverage for others bc of the Catholic Church's position on this issue.

But of course, that's not what the Church is asking for, nor is the basis on which they are asking for it one that could be a "slippery slope" for other groups. It's a clear-cut First Amendment, free exercise of religion line of reasoning, and one that has decades, if not centuries of historical precedent to back it up. It's not something that ABC Corp can utilize.

[Tigermike 3,040]

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday morning that the government should require self-insured religious institutions, such as the Catholic church in Washington, D.C., to directly pay for contraception and abortifacients.

link

[Grumps 3,704]

How is it that the left can see a "slippery slope" regarding whether or not to require contraceptives but cannot see a "slippery slope" when it comes to freedom of religious expression?

[Grumps 3,704]

I sincerely pray that each person on this forum, whatever your religious or political beliefs, will do whatever the Lord calls you to do to help this country move in the direction that He wants it to go. ( And I am not saying that I know what direction that is).

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" -- Romans 12:2

[BamaGrad03 0]

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday morning that the government should require self-insured religious institutions, such as the Catholic church in Washington, D.C., to directly pay for contraception and abortifacients.

link

"And then finished her speech by calling George Bush a 'poopy head' who 'eats babies and kicks puppies'"

[TitanTiger 20,499]

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday morning that the government should require self-insured religious institutions, such as the Catholic church in Washington, D.C., to directly pay for contraception and abortifacients.

link

...which completely obliterates the comical notion that the so-called "compromise" did anything to prevent Catholic groups from having to pay for these morally objectionable drugs and surgeries.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Nothing like some good old-fashioned red herring. I wonder if Rep. Baloney Maloney likes hers breaded and fried or grilled?

Where the Women Were During the House Contraception Mandate Hearing

The effort to tarnish religious freedom concerns as sexism is clever but wrong.

Maggie Karner | posted 2/17/2012 03:12PM

Thursday's House Oversight Committee hearing on the Obama administration's contraception coverage mandate sparked a lot of discussion on religious freedom and conscience. It also sparked a lot of discussion on who gets to speak for whom.

"What I want to know is: Where are the women?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) demanded before she walked out in protest. A photo of five men testifying before the panel quickly circulated on social network sites. At the Washington Post website today, Susan Thistlethwaite picked up on the theme: "Where is women's religious freedom and freedom of conscience?" she wrote. "Women can only conclude from this skewed panel that the chairman does not think they are created equally in God's image, and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights."

I would agree with Thistlethwaite that indeed, women are created equally, and given inalienable rights. Women, of course, deserve religious freedom. But I disagree with her suggestion that religious freedoms differ for men and women. Or, as she suggests, that that religious freedom is based upon an individual's conscience.

"In virtually all religious traditions, 'listening to the heart' and being able to act on the promptings of conscience is the absolute, non-negotiable bottom line for having religious freedom," she wrote.

But "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" makes for poor consciences and bad law. There is a good reason why U.S. courts' decisions on religious free exercise take into account actual religious teachings rather than arbitrary, personal definitions of what is right and wrong. My faith tradition has thousands of years of historical doctrine that richly informs all of our moral and ethical decision-making. Some of it is about the role of men and women—and most of it finds gender differences irrelevant. It is about humanity as a whole. Our faith is not about petty biological differences and personal egos. It is about the salvation of the entire human race. Anything that forces us to act contrary to the dictates of our faith is an affront to all that our forefathers had designed and for which our men (and women) have fought.

Honestly, I should have expected the angry blowback yesterday from the feminist crowd regarding the "all-male" panel. The outcry caused me to step back and admire an adept strategy by some to throw a red herring in the way of public disputation and detract from the real issue of concern.

As a Christian woman, I applauded this discussion by the House oversight committee on threats to our freedom of religion. Silly me: Who knew this (and every other topic under God) must be primarily about exclusively women's rights? Silly me: I thought this was about my freedom to exercise my religious beliefs in a way that honors my faith tradition's historical doctrines and practice. Silly me: I thought this was about the Constitution.

I work for a self-insured religious employer. In fact, I work for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which was represented on the panel by the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, president of our 2.5 million-member national denomination. For years my family and I have been covered by our church's insurance plan, which has never provided contraception or birth control in its coverage. Our health plan doesn't cover these products because our church body values the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception, and because the mechanism of action for the various categories of hormonal birth control products can be unclear. Rather than guesstimate on what classifies as an early abortifacient and what doesn't, our health plan doesn't cover any form of contraception in order to protect the consciences of the many members of this plan who might share different ideas. I never expected our insurance plan to cover a drug that, to me, seemed a matter of personal choice. After all, they don't cover my vitamins either.

The claim by the pro-Obamacare folks that contraception is "preventive care" is messing with the lexicon of medical definition. Quite simply, pregnancy is not a disease. So therefore, pregnancy does not require preventive care. Instead, it requires "diagnostic care" for the health of the mother and baby. This is something entirely different. We cannot succumb to the mantra that killing unborn children is preventive care.

As a woman, I was embarrassed by the cry of "Where are the women?" because I don't give a rip what gender is speaking about religious freedom as long as it is being addressed. It matters to us all—at least I thought it did. It certainly did to our Founding Fathers who penned the Constitution. And it certainly did to my ancestors who came to this country over a hundred years ago to find the freedom to exercise their faith in a robust and unencumbered way. Rep. Maloney's, and others', insistence that this is primarily a matter of "women's health" is an intentional (although I must say, masterful) attempt to redefine the argument, gain liberal momentum, and detract from the critical issue at hand.

Curiously, before the hearing there was apparently no great concern by the House minority on that committee to get a woman on the witness panel because they didn't make the effort to file the female witness' paperwork in time. The other witness they recommended was a man (who, incidentally, didn't show up). Not to mention that there was a woman (who objected to the HHS mandate) on the second panel of the discussion—but by then the "all male" photo had gone viral and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was already holding her own press conference in another wing to lead the charge of taking offense.

What those angry gals fail to realize is that as a Christian woman I was brilliantly represented on that House committee panel. In my first vocation as a Christian, I cheered the testimony of those brave men of the cloth because they represented me. They shared their concerns for the integrity of the free exercise of our faith traditions along with respect for the First Amendment of the Constitution. In my second vocation as a woman, I cheered again because that panel was filled with some of the finest theological leaders of our day. They made my case to Congress and they did it exceptionally well. Other women concerned about the ability to maintain their choice to exercise their faith (without the interference of an over-reaching government) should cheer too.

Maggie Karner is the director of LCMS Life and Health Ministries.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/februaryweb-only/women-contraceptive-mandate.html

[RunInRed 16,438]

Let me be clear on my position - I would have no problem with an 'opt-out' clause although, it is a little problematic bc of the slippery slope. Once you make exceptions for one group...

But what I would have more of a problem with us a wholesale change to policy that prevents coverage for others bc of the Catholic Church's position on this issue.

Do you think it is constitutional to force private citizens to pay for other citizens contraceptives? (I'm not limiting it to the church -- just in general).

Not to be flippant but 'forcing,' others to be part of a paid in pool of premiums that yields broad benefits is the definition of group insurance.

Think of it this way, personally I don't engage in many activities that lead some to medical treatments via their insurance but as part of a bigger pool, I technically subsidize it through my premiums.

[RunInRed 16,438]

Let me be clear on my position - I would have no problem with an 'opt-out' clause although, it is a little problematic bc of the slippery slope. Once you make exceptions for one group...

But what I would have more of a problem with us a wholesale change to policy that prevents coverage for others bc of the Catholic Church's position on this issue.

But of course, that's not what the Church is asking for, nor is the basis on which they are asking for it one that could be a "slippery slope" for other groups. It's a clear-cut First Amendment, free exercise of religion line of reasoning, and one that has decades, if not centuries of historical precedent to back it up. It's not something that ABC Corp can utilize.

Oh come on, surely you are not that naive...

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Let me be clear on my position - I would have no problem with an 'opt-out' clause although, it is a little problematic bc of the slippery slope. Once you make exceptions for one group...

But what I would have more of a problem with us a wholesale change to policy that prevents coverage for others bc of the Catholic Church's position on this issue.

But of course, that's not what the Church is asking for, nor is the basis on which they are asking for it one that could be a "slippery slope" for other groups. It's a clear-cut First Amendment, free exercise of religion line of reasoning, and one that has decades, if not centuries of historical precedent to back it up. It's not something that ABC Corp can utilize.

Oh come on, surely you are not that naive...

Explain to me how a secular company would claim an exemption based on the free exercise clause.

You do realize such exemptions have been in place for almost two centuries now, right? I'm not naive, I understand history.