Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[au2004ece 30]

The way this issue has been framed, you absolutely cannot be against this unless you are anti-woman or anti- women rights. Birth control is currently accessible. This law wants to go a step further and make it "free." Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it.

And what's really flat out disturbing is the one in this thread arguing so hard about cost and affordibility is the same one who wants to not only raise taxes on the rich, but on everyone. He also doesn't mind gas prices skyrocketing, which will increase food prices too. Yet, he's fighting so hard for "free" birth control under the veil of how women shouldn't be burdened with having to pay a penny for birth control.

RiR would ultimately put more of a burden on women through higher taxation and higher gas prices... but this is ok.

After healthcare, then free gas will be a right. When you realize that is where they want to take us, then you can see why they throw out ambiguous ideas about cost. They see prices as something that only matters for those that can afford. Everyone that can't afford will just have whatever it is given to them. Of course this way of thinking is ignorant of how any economy works or grows, and goes against our nations ideals of freedom and rights, but don't worry they have the common good in mind. If the common good is helped then it doesn't matter whose rights are violated. Even when it all crashes, at least they will be able to say that supported the guy that seemed so nice.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

So you believe the vast majority of Catholics don't use birth control and other forms of contraception? And if so, I've got some ocean front property...

I don't know how many use or to don't use it. And neither do you. I just know it's not 98%, at least based on the stats from the study you keep quoting. Just to give you an idea of how dumb it is, if tomorrow I decided to become Catholic, it would only be because I agree with the doctrine and beliefs of the Church, including birth control. Therefore my wife and I would no longer use any artificial birth control methods. However we would be included in that survey as part of the "98% of Catholics who have used birth control." Even though we no longer agree with it's use nor do we use it. Do you not see how ridiculous and meaningless such a stat is. It's complete laziness on the part of the survey and by extension, anyone that keeps putting stock in it after this point is explained to them.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the Constitutional issue. And you don't have a leg to stand on forcing a religious organization to pay to subsidize someone else's desired sex life.

I don't feel my first amendment rights are any less because people have access to birth control as part of their healthcare plan.

You don't feel that way because your specific first amendment rights aren't being targeted...yet.

And deep down, I don't think you do either - you just have a moral beef against abortion and other human morality issues (which, is fine) and your using this issue as your vehicle to drive your point home.

See, this is just complete crap and it's why I keep getting upset. You don't pay attention to anything I've written, multiple times. This isn't about abortion, even though my feelings are well documented on that and the abortifacients exacerbate the problem with this mandate. The only real reason I mention that aspect at all are twofold: 1) you guys keep framing this as about contraception when it also includes surgical sterilization and chemical abortifacients. You do this because you know a lot of people like having the pill paid for and the other stuff is harder to make sound good. 2) I don't think it's that big a leap to force people to pay for drugs like ella against their religious beliefs and eventually forcing them to cover abortions themselves via RU-486 or even other means.

For the umpteenth time: I have no qualms with contraception. My wife and I have used and continue to use various methods during our marriage. But even if you stripped out everything else and only wanted to force them to pay for contraceptives against their religious beliefs, it's still wrong. Pause. Re-read that again so it sinks in this time. So you can think whatever you want deep down, but you couldn't be more wrong. And we all lose when we don't learn to tolerate other people's religious beliefs and allow our government to infringe upon them.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I think this issue goes far beyond birth control. The issue is government choices versus individual rights. With obama as president, the government will always win that argument. Individual rights mean nothing, or are bastardized to mean rights to force others to do something for you, when governments get to plan our lives. How can people support these types of policies? Because they don't think and believe the argument is about making people stop using birth control without recognizing the power grab the government is making and the destructiveness these anti-freedom policies will place on our economy.

Minor correction: Individual rights are sacrosanct if it's about your right to an abortion. If it's about some piddly religion's rights, then the government knows best.

[TigerHeat 9]

If Obama has lost he Jesuits, he has lost the whole Church:

"On the surface, we might be tempted to look on the move to extend what is called “health care” to everyone, including religious institutions, to be something wholly neutral and well-meant. The fact is, however, that it is but one aspect of a world-wide logic, by no means limited to this country. It demands, under the name of the universal common good, the complete control of the state over all aspects of human well-being, especially those having to do with matters of life, death, human reproduction, and efforts to prevent or control the same.

That an American president should cast himself as the main advocate of this massive extension of unlimited state power should, in fact, surprise no one. The essential premises of such expansion have been taught in most American universities for years with little effective criticism. The position that the President employs to justify his actions has been in the books for a long time.

Catholicism, much to its surprise, suddenly finds itself in the eye-sight of the absolute state because it is now the remaining body of reasoning that articulately opposes this power extension into all aspects of human life. No one should be fooled into thinking that a democratic totalitarianism is not possible. It is in fact happening before our very eyes. It will be very smooth and enticing. It will reward those who assist it along the way.

What is thus of particular interest is the way that administration spokesmen use dissident Catholics to play off Catholics against the hierarchy. The U.S. bishops have become remarkably alert to the threat against its public institutions in a way that many self-announced Catholic politicians, universities, hospitals, and publicists have not. The fact is that those Catholic sources that support the administration’s move can anticipate reward on the condition that they serve to justify doctrinally what is going on in the name of “democratizing” Catholicism.

But what is behind all of this current turmoil is the demise of religious freedom itself. The tradition of religious freedom as classically understood is no longer accepted as limiting the state. The state now argues that its concept of “human dignity” now controls what religion can hold in the public order. Anyone who disagrees with state definition will no longer be allowed to join government programs or institutions. A new ideological test of citizenship is in place. And that test maintains that what Catholicism holds about marriage, contraception, human life, abortion, human experimentation, and euthanasia is contrary to the government’s definition of human life." -James Schall, SJ

[RunInRed 16,471]

Runinred, again I'm left to assume you can't answer my question because you know their is no reason your so-called "right to access" should trump the right of the employer to make their own choices.

With all your blah blah about cost (which is irrelevant during a discussion of if I should but it for you), you never explain why you believe that one group should subsidize the sex-life choices of another group. You seem to believe that people have zero responsibility to avoid choices that they cannot afford. Is that what you believe?

I believe that we, as members of a civilized society, an American family, share a common destiny. And to this end, I believe we all carry certain obligations. From a philosophical sense -and I know we differ here- this includes basic healthcare. But there's a practical side of this too: we, the taxpayers, the insured, the functioning members of this society, are going to pay for this one way or the other. Through higher medicaid/medicare bills, higher and higher insurance premiums. Now, I know you are going to argue that there's nothing 'basic', 'preventative' or 'necessary' with the specific healthcare issue at hand but like it or not, I -and millions more like me- hold a much different view.

Now, to your point about employers making their own choices, I say to you that I don't want fundamental healthcare in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry who's motivation and incentives are to their bottom lines. Again, you can disagree. You can argue for every person to have to fend for themselves and tell me 'the market' will take care of us all ... spare me the talking points ... I don't buy it, the uninsured, under-insured and exorbitant costs we pay in comparison to our peers already tells me this doesn't work. Another words, we've already tried it your way and all it gave us was costs that are over twice as much as any other industrialized country with results that put us even further behind.

[au2004ece 30]

Yep: absolute state power versus individual rights. Which side are you on?

I hope the republican nominee frames the issue this way.

[RunInRed 16,471]

The way this issue has been framed, you absolutely cannot be against this unless you are anti-woman or anti- women rights. Birth control is currently accessible. This law wants to go a step further and make it "free." Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it.

And what's really flat out disturbing is the one in this thread arguing so hard about cost and affordibility is the same one who wants to not only raise taxes on the rich, but on everyone. He also doesn't mind gas prices skyrocketing, which will increase food prices too. Yet, he's fighting so hard for "free" birth control under the veil of how women shouldn't be burdened with having to pay a penny for birth control.

RiR would ultimately put more of a burden on women through higher taxation and higher gas prices... but this is ok.

Nonsense. I've already addressed this.

[au2004ece 30]

Runinred, again I'm left to assume you can't answer my question because you know their is no reason your so-called "right to access" should trump the right of the employer to make their own choices.

With all your blah blah about cost (which is irrelevant during a discussion of if I should but it for you), you never explain why you believe that one group should subsidize the sex-life choices of another group. You seem to believe that people have zero responsibility to avoid choices that they cannot afford. Is that what you believe?

I believe that we, as members of a civilized society, an American family, share a common destiny. And to this end, I believe we all carry certain obligations. From a philosophical sense -and I know we differ here- this includes basic healthcare. But there's a practical side of this too: we, the taxpayers, the insured, the functioning members of this society, are going to pay for this one way or the other. Through higher medicaid/medicare bills, higher and higher insurance premiums. Now, I know you are going to argue that there's nothing 'basic', 'preventative' or 'necessary' but the specific healthcare issue at hand but like it or not, I -and millions more like me- hold a much different view.

Now, to your point about employers making their own choices, I say to you that I don't want fundamental healthcare in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry who's motivation and incentives are to their bottom lines. Again, you can disagree. You can argue for every person to have to fend for themselves and tell me 'the market' will take care of us all ... spare me the talking points ... I don't buy it, the uninsured, under-insured and exorbitant costs we pay in comparison to our peers already tells me this doesn't work. Another words, we've already tried it your way and all it gave us was costs that are over twice as much as any other industrialized country with results that put us even further behind.

Why give the state this power to decide how I spend my money? Why not create a charity that people can willingly give to in order to help the under insured? Why do you believe it necessary to force others to behave the way you want them to?

To address your point that healthcare should not be in the hands of every business executive: I agree. The laws we have now and the debate we are having is because the government has forced healthcare into the hands of employers. As I have said, a healthcare market that is similar to the car insurance market would be much more preferred. Employers and governments make blanket decisions. Individuals make decisions for themselves. When individual choice leads the market, we get what we want collectively. When government or employer choices lead the market, we get what others think we should want.

I don't understand why you have more faith in government leaders than business leaders. I don't put faith in either when it comes to my individual decisions. The sooner we all recognize the government leaders and business leaders probably have their own interest in mind we will all be better off because we will start making our own decisions. The government leaders have their re election or legacy in mind just like business leaders have the bottom line and their bank account in mind.

[RunInRed 16,471]

I don't know how many use or to don't use it. And neither do you. I just know it's not 98%, at least based on the stats from the study you keep quoting. Just to give you an idea of how dumb it is, if tomorrow I decided to become Catholic, it would only be because I agree with the doctrine and beliefs of the Church, including birth control. Therefore my wife and I would no longer use any artificial birth control methods. However we would be included in that survey as part of the "98% of Catholics who have used birth control." Even though we no longer agree with it's use nor do we use it. Do you not see how ridiculous and meaningless such a stat is. It's complete laziness on the part of the survey and by extension, anyone that keeps putting stock in it after this point is explained to them.

Rule Number 1: When trying to punch a hole in statistic, don't lead with "I don't know how many..."

Let's just put it this way, I think it's a fairly safe assumption, based on the percentage of sexually-active people who use contraception/birth control in this country, that Catholics, who makeup some 25% of the American population, are no exemption. Or to put it another way, the real number is without a doubt closer to 98 than it is to 0 percent.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the Constitutional issue. And you don't have a leg to stand on forcing a religious organization to pay to subsidize someone else's desired sex life.

Sure I do. I believe there's a 'price' for being part of a modern society. But regardless, I think the Obama administration has put forth an adequate compromise which puts forth an exemptive path.

You don't feel that way because your specific first amendment rights aren't being targeted...yet.

A ridiculous counter point, based on a phantom boogeyman that doesn't exist. Guess what, I would still feel this way, even if I was Catholic.

See, this is just complete crap and it's why I keep getting upset. You don't pay attention to anything I've written, multiple times. This isn't about abortion, even though my feelings are well documented on that and the abortifacients exacerbate the problem with this mandate. The only real reason I mention that aspect at all are twofold: 1) you guys keep framing this as about contraception when it also includes surgical sterilization and chemical abortifacients. You do this because you know a lot of people like having the pill paid for and the other stuff is harder to make sound good. 2) I don't think it's that big a leap to force people to pay for drugs like ella against their religious beliefs and eventually forcing them to cover abortions themselves via RU-486 or even other means.

For the umpteenth time: I have no qualms with contraception. My wife and I have used and continue to use various methods during our marriage. But even if you stripped out everything else and only wanted to force them to pay for contraceptives against their religious beliefs, it's still wrong. Pause. Re-read that again so it sinks in this time. So you can think whatever you want deep down, but you couldn't be more wrong. And we all lose when we don't learn to tolerate other people's religious beliefs and allow our government to infringe upon them.

I don't buy the religious freedom argument for one primary reason: No person is being forced to use contraception or have an abortion because of this legislation. Not one. Nor will they ever.

[Auburn85 432]

The way this issue has been framed, you absolutely cannot be against this unless you are anti-woman or anti- women rights. Birth control is currently accessible. This law wants to go a step further and make it "free." Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it.

And what's really flat out disturbing is the one in this thread arguing so hard about cost and affordibility is the same one who wants to not only raise taxes on the rich, but on everyone. He also doesn't mind gas prices skyrocketing, which will increase food prices too. Yet, he's fighting so hard for "free" birth control under the veil of how women shouldn't be burdened with having to pay a penny for birth control.

RiR would ultimately put more of a burden on women through higher taxation and higher gas prices... but this is ok.

Nonsense. I've already addressed this.

That's what I based my response to.

You are arguing the hardest for "free" birth control because of cost and affordability being a burden to women. High gas prices don't bother you (no burden?). You want to raise taxes on EVERYONE(no burden?) for sake of fairness (and Clinton nostalgia- when simply tweeking the tax rates to Clinton levels doesn't equate conditions for another 90s boom).

[au2004ece 30]

Runinred, again I'm left to assume you can't answer my question because you know their is no reason your so-called "right to access" should trump the right of the employer to make their own choices.

With all your blah blah about cost (which is irrelevant during a discussion of if I should but it for you), you never explain why you believe that one group should subsidize the sex-life choices of another group. You seem to believe that people have zero responsibility to avoid choices that they cannot afford. Is that what you believe?

I believe that we, as members of a civilized society, an American family, share a common destiny. And to this end, I believe we all carry certain obligations. From a philosophical sense -and I know we differ here- this includes basic healthcare. But there's a practical side of this too: we, the taxpayers, the insured, the functioning members of this society, are going to pay for this one way or the other. Through higher medicaid/medicare bills, higher and higher insurance premiums. Now, I know you are going to argue that there's nothing 'basic', 'preventative' or 'necessary' but the specific healthcare issue at hand but like it or not, I -and millions more like me- hold a much different view.

Now, to your point about employers making their own choices, I say to you that I don't want fundamental healthcare in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry who's motivation and incentives are to their bottom lines. Again, you can disagree. You can argue for every person to have to fend for themselves and tell me 'the market' will take care of us all ... spare me the talking points ... I don't buy it, the uninsured, under-insured and exorbitant costs we pay in comparison to our peers already tells me this doesn't work. Another words, we've already tried it your way and all it gave us was costs that are over twice as much as any other industrialized country with results that put us even further behind.

Why give the state this power to decide how I spend my money? Why not create a charity that people can willingly give to in order to help the under insured? Why do you believe it necessary to force others to behave the way you want them to?

To address your point that healthcare should not be in the hands of every business executive: I agree. The laws we have now and the debate we are having is because the government has forced healthcare into the hands of employers. As I have said, a healthcare market that is similar to the car insurance market would be much more preferred. Employers and governments make blanket decisions. Individuals make decisions for themselves. When individual choice leads the market, we get what we want collectively. When government or employer choices lead the market, we get what others think we should want.

I don't understand why you have more faith in government leaders than business leaders. I don't put faith in either when it comes to my individual decisions. The sooner we all recognize the government leaders and business leaders probably have their own interest in mind we will all be better off because we will start making our own decisions. The government leaders have their re election or legacy in mind just like business leaders have the bottom line and their bank account in mind.

By the way, implied within your response is that you don't give a crap about any rights as long as their is a perceived gain for society at large. There have been many terrible things done to people by those that disregarded all individuals for the sake of the collective.

Collectivist thinking has killed every economy and nation that implemented the ideas that come from it.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Rule Number 1: When trying to punch a hole in statistic, don't lead with "I don't know how many..."

First, I didn't punch a hole in the stat. The shoddy pollster did that. The statistician just shined a light on the fact. The point is, his own methodology showed the number to be significantly less than 98%. That I can't pinpoint for you the exact number doesn't make that less true.

Let's just put it this way, I think it's a fairly safe assumption, based on the percentage of sexually-active people who use contraception/birth control in this country, that Catholics, who makeup some 25% of the American population, are no exemption. Or to put it another way, the real number is without a doubt closer to 98 than it is to 0 percent.

Well of course it's closer to 98% than 0%. I don't recall even making such a claim that it was close to zero. But if you're going to wave around a "98%" flag as some kind of proof of the strength of your argument, the number damn sure better be accurate. Otherwise, quit using it.

And of course, that doesn't even address the point that polls are not determinative of right and wrong. It's not my fault the majority of the American people would fail a basic civics class.

Sure I do. I believe there's a 'price' for being part of a modern society. But regardless, I think the Obama administration has put forth an adequate compromise to put forth an exemptive path.

Yeah, you believe the price is for government to dictate to religious people that their beliefs only count when its kept amongst themselves. They can't truly live out their faith in public life unless they throw some of their convictions (as determined by you) to the wayside first. The United States Government -- Sole Arbiter of Which of Your Religious Beliefs Matter. How comforting.

And the compromise was an accounting gimmick that you'd never buy if it were used on you for something you felt was unfair for you or an organization you believed in to pay for.

A ridiculous counter point, based on a phantom boogeyman that doesn't exist. Guess what, I would still feel this way, even if I was Catholic.

It's always a phantom when your rights haven't been targeted as unimportant.

I don't buy the religious freedom argument for one primary reason: No person is being forced to use contraception or have an abortion because of this legislation. Not one. Nor will they ever.

Again, you don't see because you refuse to see that forcing someone to participate in your actions that they believe are wrong is the same thing. If you don't me that I don't have to get an abortion myself but I must drive a girl who wants one to the abortion clinic, I think you would clearly see that is forcing me to materially participate in something I find abhorrent and goes against my religious beliefs. Using your exact same line of argument, forcing Catholic organizations to perform abortions and pay for them in their health plans is really no different than this new provision. After all, they aren't being forced to go get abortions themselves.

And that's ludicrous. You know it is. Not to mention, just as I said before the converse is true...allowing religious organizations to retain the same conscience exemptions they had before doesn't deny anyone the right to contraception. In essence what you have decided is that because people want to have sex as many times as they wish without consequence, someone else should be forced to subsidize it. Where on earth you get this crazy "right" is anyone's guess.

[TigerHeat 9]

I don't know how many use or to don't use it. And neither do you. I just know it's not 98%, at least based on the stats from the study you keep quoting. Just to give you an idea of how dumb it is, if tomorrow I decided to become Catholic, it would only be because I agree with the doctrine and beliefs of the Church, including birth control. Therefore my wife and I would no longer use any artificial birth control methods. However we would be included in that survey as part of the "98% of Catholics who have used birth control." Even though we no longer agree with it's use nor do we use it. Do you not see how ridiculous and meaningless such a stat is. It's complete laziness on the part of the survey and by extension, anyone that keeps putting stock in it after this point is explained to them.

Rule Number 1: When trying to punch a hole in statistic, don't lead with "I don't know how many..."

Let's just put it this way, I think it's a fairly safe assumption, based on the percentage of sexually-active people who use contraception/birth control in this country, that Catholics, who makeup some 25% of the American population, are no exemption. Or to put it another way, the real number is without a doubt closer to 98 than it is to 0 percent. So what is that number of Catholics? Is that even relevant to the discussion other than to try to make the point that some Catholics disobey Church teaching? That's a shock. Anybody have a church that has obedient members? No? Okay, so let the government force their leadership to change their doctrine to accomodate the church members' inabilities.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the Constitutional issue. And you don't have a leg to stand on forcing a religious organization to pay to subsidize someone else's desired sex life.

Sure I do. I believe there's a 'price' for being part of a modern society. But regardless, I think the Obama administration has put forth an adequate compromise which puts forth an exemptive path.

What, exactly, is the "compromise" of which you speak?

You don't feel that way because your specific first amendment rights aren't being targeted...yet.

A ridiculous counter point, based on a phantom boogeyman that doesn't exist. Guess what, I would still feel this way, even if I was Catholic.

If you felt that way as a Catholic you'd be either very lonely or a Democrat politician.

See, this is just complete crap and it's why I keep getting upset. You don't pay attention to anything I've written, multiple times. This isn't about abortion, even though my feelings are well documented on that and the abortifacients exacerbate the problem with this mandate. The only real reason I mention that aspect at all are twofold: 1) you guys keep framing this as about contraception when it also includes surgical sterilization and chemical abortifacients. You do this because you know a lot of people like having the pill paid for and the other stuff is harder to make sound good. 2) I don't think it's that big a leap to force people to pay for drugs like ella against their religious beliefs and eventually forcing them to cover abortions themselves via RU-486 or even other means.

For the umpteenth time: I have no qualms with contraception. My wife and I have used and continue to use various methods during our marriage. But even if you stripped out everything else and only wanted to force them to pay for contraceptives against their religious beliefs, it's still wrong. Pause. Re-read that again so it sinks in this time. So you can think whatever you want deep down, but you couldn't be more wrong. And we all lose when we don't learn to tolerate other people's religious beliefs and allow our government to infringe upon them.

I don't buy the religious freedom argument for one primary reason: No person is being forced to use contraception or have an abortion because of this legislation. Not one. Nor will they ever.

This is a shockingly stupid statement. You are not a stupid man. NOT ONE PERSON HAS MADE THIS ARGUMENT, EVER. You know this.

People who are fundamentally opposed to contraception and abortion will be FORCED to fund BOTH or face the wrath of the current administration. Force is being applied by the Democrats here, and it's not in favor of ANYONE'S freedom. This is not being done to advance anyone's rights...it's being done so the administration can be total whores to their special interests and their Big Pharma campaign funders.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

So as I read over all the arguments being made for why its perfectly acceptable for the government to dictate these terms to church organizations, let me see if I've got this straight:

--If the government dictates to religious organizations what they must pay for, even if they self-insure and regardless of their beliefs on the matter, there is no violation of the separation of church and state.

--If religious organizations dictate to the government what they can or cannot provide to American citizens, the separation of church and state has been violated.

--Forcing religious organizations to use their money to provide healthcare plans that include things that violate their beliefs = perfectly acceptable by our Constitution. After all, they aren't being forced to use the objectionable items themselves, the employees are and that's their choice.

--Having the government provide school vouchers that parents could, if they chose to do so, use to pay tuition to a private religious school = an unacceptable violation of our Constitution. Even though the government isn't forcibly sending kids to these schools, the parents are and it's their choice.

Crazy me. I always understood the First Amendment to not be so one-sided.

[TigerHeat 9]

So as I read over all the arguments being made for why its perfectly acceptable for the government to dictate these terms to church organizations, let me see if I've got this straight:

--If the government dictates to religious organizations what they must pay for, even if they self-insure and regardless of their beliefs on the matter, there is no violation of the separation of church and state.

--If religious organizations dictate to the government what they can or cannot provide to American citizens, the separation of church and state has been violated.

--Forcing religious organizations to use their money to provide healthcare plans that include things that violate their beliefs = perfectly acceptable by our Constitution. After all, they aren't being forced to use the objectionable items themselves, the employees are and that's their choice.

--Having the government provide school vouchers that parents could, if they chose to do so, use to pay tuition to a private religious school = an unacceptable violation of our Constitution. Even though the government isn't forcibly sending kids to these schools, the parents are and it's their choice.

Crazy me. I always understood the First Amendment to not be so one-sided.

There is no 1st Amendment. That's a relic. Get with the pogrom, man.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

There is no 1st Amendment. That's a relic. Get with the pogrom, man.

I see what you did there.

[TigerHeat 9]

There is no 1st Amendment. That's a relic. Get with the pogrom, man.

I see what you did there.

"Thanks for coming out."

[TigerHeat 9]

The real reason for this travesty:My link

Runinred, again I'm left to assume you can't answer my question because you know their is no reason your so-called "right to access" should trump the right of the employer to make their own choices.

With all your blah blah about cost (which is irrelevant during a discussion of if I should but it for you), you never explain why you believe that one group should subsidize the sex-life choices of another group. You seem to believe that people have zero responsibility to avoid choices that they cannot afford. Is that what you believe?

I believe that we, as members of a civilized society, an American family, share a common destiny. And to this end, I believe we all carry certain obligations. From a philosophical sense -and I know we differ here- this includes basic healthcare. But there's a practical side of this too: we, the taxpayers, the insured, the functioning members of this society, are going to pay for this one way or the other. Through higher medicaid/medicare bills, higher and higher insurance premiums. Now, I know you are going to argue that there's nothing 'basic', 'preventative' or 'necessary' with the specific healthcare issue at hand but like it or not, I -and millions more like me- hold a much different view.

Now, to your point about employers making their own choices, I say to you that I don't want fundamental healthcare in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry who's motivation and incentives are to their bottom lines. Again, you can disagree. You can argue for every person to have to fend for themselves and tell me 'the market' will take care of us all ... spare me the talking points ... I don't buy it, the uninsured, under-insured and exorbitant costs we pay in comparison to our peers already tells me this doesn't work. Another words, we've already tried it your way and all it gave us was costs that are over twice as much as any other industrialized country with results that put us even further behind.

[Grumps 3,704]

There is no 1st Amendment. That's a relic. Get with the pogrom, man.

I see what you did there.

Wow, TigerHeat, that was smooth. And Titan, nice catch. You both are impressive!

[Grumps 3,704]

The real reason for this travesty:My link

Runinred, again I'm left to assume you can't answer my question because you know their is no reason your so-called "right to access" should trump the right of the employer to make their own choices.

With all your blah blah about cost (which is irrelevant during a discussion of if I should but it for you), you never explain why you believe that one group should subsidize the sex-life choices of another group. You seem to believe that people have zero responsibility to avoid choices that they cannot afford. Is that what you believe?

I believe that we, as members of a civilized society, an American family, share a common destiny. And to this end, I believe we all carry certain obligations. From a philosophical sense -and I know we differ here- this includes basic healthcare. But there's a practical side of this too: we, the taxpayers, the insured, the functioning members of this society, are going to pay for this one way or the other. Through higher medicaid/medicare bills, higher and higher insurance premiums. Now, I know you are going to argue that there's nothing 'basic', 'preventative' or 'necessary' with the specific healthcare issue at hand but like it or not, I -and millions more like me- hold a much different view.

Now, to your point about employers making their own choices, I say to you that I don't want fundamental healthcare in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry who's motivation and incentives are to their bottom lines. Again, you can disagree. You can argue for every person to have to fend for themselves and tell me 'the market' will take care of us all ... spare me the talking points ... I don't buy it, the uninsured, under-insured and exorbitant costs we pay in comparison to our peers already tells me this doesn't work. Another words, we've already tried it your way and all it gave us was costs that are over twice as much as any other industrialized country with results that put us even further behind.

If the Obamacare law forces companies to pay for brand name contraceptives then Obama should be impeached, or worse.

[TigerHeat 9]

There is no 1st Amendment. That's a relic. Get with the pogrom, man.

I see what you did there.

Wow, TigerHeat, that was smooth. And Titan, nice catch. You both are impressive!

Don't be fooled. We're both just backwards-thinking, brainwashed, uneducated hatemongers.

[Grumps 3,704]

TigerHeat, thanks for giving a Catholics take on all of this. It is interesting that this thread is 30+ pages and one poster says that the Catholic Church is energized like he has never seen before (or something like that)and still the liberals think this issue is just politics as usual. I hope that the liberals continue to be blind long enough for real damage to be done to Obama's re-election campaign.

[TigerHeat 9]

TigerHeat, thanks for giving a Catholics take on all of this. It is interesting that this thread is 30+ pages and one poster says that the Catholic Church is energized like he has never seen before (or something like that)and still the liberals think this issue is just politics as usual. I hope that the liberals continue to be blind long enough for real damage to be done to Obama's re-election campaign.

Obama's echo chamber has set him up for a disaster of his own making. This is the equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Russia. It looked great before the campaign started, and it seemed to go great at the beginning. But General Winter of this go round is an army of blue haired ladies carrying rosaries and their grandkids in Knights of Columbus polos. Like Hitler, he picked a fight with a powerful opponent that would have left him alone. The comical thing is that this army is just now stirring after 40+ years of relevantly political quiet.

People that had no interest in politics are now obsessed with it...and in big numbers. Hah!

As an aside, this morning I heard another homily from another priest that has always been apolitical. Think Marvin Milquetoast. NOT TODAY. Today it was "prepare for combat. The Slitherer has reared his head in a place we didn't expect it."

[RunInRed 16,471]

So as I read over all the arguments being made for why its perfectly acceptable for the government to dictate these terms to church organizations, let me see if I've got this straight:

--If the government dictates to religious organizations what they must pay for, even if they self-insure and regardless of their beliefs on the matter, there is no violation of the separation of church and state.

--If religious organizations dictate to the government what they can or cannot provide to American citizens, the separation of church and state has been violated.

--Forcing religious organizations to use their money to provide healthcare plans that include things that violate their beliefs = perfectly acceptable by our Constitution. After all, they aren't being forced to use the objectionable items themselves, the employees are and that's their choice.

--Having the government provide school vouchers that parents could, if they chose to do so, use to pay tuition to a private religious school = an unacceptable violation of our Constitution. Even though the government isn't forcibly sending kids to these schools, the parents are and it's their choice.

Crazy me. I always understood the First Amendment to not be so one-sided.

The other side as put by the Supreme Court in 1878 (Reynolds v. United States), must better than I could...

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

...

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Summed up nicely here...

In our secular government, there should be no special privileges for religions. This does not mean that religions are barred from the secular arena. Indeed, as we all know, the ethos of many religions inform our public debate. And when the ethos of certain religions prevail in the debate, through elections, they become our secular law (limited of course by the rights protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights).

But when our secular laws and government adopt public policy that places religious teachings in conflict with our laws, then religious beliefs must not provide immunity from compliance in our secular world with our laws. This is true when the law bars polygamy, genital mutilation, race and gender discrimination and yes, employers offering health coverage for women that includes contraception.

The encroachment of religion on our secular government

[TigerHeat 9]

So as I read over all the arguments being made for why its perfectly acceptable for the government to dictate these terms to church organizations, let me see if I've got this straight:

--If the government dictates to religious organizations what they must pay for, even if they self-insure and regardless of their beliefs on the matter, there is no violation of the separation of church and state.

--If religious organizations dictate to the government what they can or cannot provide to American citizens, the separation of church and state has been violated.

--Forcing religious organizations to use their money to provide healthcare plans that include things that violate their beliefs = perfectly acceptable by our Constitution. After all, they aren't being forced to use the objectionable items themselves, the employees are and that's their choice.

--Having the government provide school vouchers that parents could, if they chose to do so, use to pay tuition to a private religious school = an unacceptable violation of our Constitution. Even though the government isn't forcibly sending kids to these schools, the parents are and it's their choice.

Crazy me. I always understood the First Amendment to not be so one-sided.

The other side as put by the Supreme Court in 1878 (Reynolds v. United States), must better than I could...

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

...

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Summed up nicely here...

In our secular government, there should be no special privileges for religions. This does not mean that religions are barred from the secular arena. Indeed, as we all know, the ethos of many religions inform our public debate. And when the ethos of certain religions prevail in the debate, through elections, they become our secular law (limited of course by the rights protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights).

But when our secular laws and government adopt public policy that places religious teachings in conflict with our laws, then religious beliefs must not provide immunity from compliance in our secular world with our laws. This is true when the law bars polygamy, genital mutilation, race and gender discrimination and yes, employers offering health coverage for women that includes contraception.

The encroachment of religion on our secular government

I'm shocked that DailyKos takes that position. Shocked, I tell ya!

Forcing Catholic institutions out of existance so Obama can get campaign money from Big Pharma is exactly the same as genital mutilation. Yep.