... Democrat Obama dominated among Latino Catholics nationally and in key swing states in 2008. He won roughly three out of four Latino Catholics in New Mexico and Nevada, according to exit polls.Wisconsin's Catholics are — as Gilbert puts it — "overwhelmingly white." In 2008, these white Catholics went for Obama by a 4 point margin. But Obama won Wisconsin by 14 points, so the white Catholic vote is more conservative than the state generally. In 2010, white Catholics voted for Scott Walker by an 8 point margin. So influencing this group can be key to flipping Wisconsin one way or the other.
But he narrowly lost white Catholics in the majority of swing states he carried, winning this group in only three battlegrounds with sizable Catholic populations– Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan. In most cases, the "white Catholic vote" was very similar to the "white vote."
Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans? How strange! It was only one month ago that Mitt Romney was puzzled that the topic of contraception was even being raised.
पोस्ट्स
४३८ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 438 पैकी 201 – 400 नवीन› नवीनतम»There is nothing more inspiring as observing a well reasoned response to questions of faith from a pissed off priest. Fr. Martin Fox will deserve a martini tonight after jousting with the intellectually challenged and the theologically clueless.
Seeing Red said...
"I think the state of CT mandates toupee coverage. Should we mandate that as well, 36? It's the law in CT, shouldn't it be the law everywhere else."
What does that have to do with being denied equal treatment under the law because of someone else's religious beliefs?
"I don't think that will happen."
Well, that's comforting.
Catholic Charities already threatened to do so in IL because the State was going to force them to provide gay adoptions.
Now the State is like, wait, can't we work something out?
Equal treatment? hahahahhahaaaaa
I think the republican bake sales already proved there's no equal treatment.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Silly.
When men start getting fair deals in divorce from judges and/or we get rid of Affirmative Action, then we can talk about equal treatment.
Or we can start with that female rapist who got a handslap.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“It's amazing how hostile--or terrified--some are of real freedom and diversity.”
Father Martin,
I would say that seems to apply to the Church in this case. Not everyone follows the teachings of the Catholic Church. How many doctors, nurses, professors, teachers and other employees at these institutions are not Catholic?
"What does that have to do with being denied equal treatment under the law because of someone else's religious beliefs?"
The government has created this "inequality" by mandating one-size-fits-all health insurance. This is just one example of a spectacularly ill-conceived policy.
36:
Oh, let me assure you. The Catholic Church is going to the mat on this one.
There may be some division when it comes to that; but I'm ready to go jail; I'm not alone.
When the sheriff comes to seize property, because church organizations refused to pay the fine...how will those optics be? Obama = Henry VIII.
Many Catholic hospitals are already shutting down because of economic realities, or merging with secular hospitals and losing their identity. That will worsen.
Look, this isn't the Church's first rodeo with government persecution. We've faced worse. This is something we know about.
When men start getting fair deals in divorce from judges and/or we get rid of Affirmative Action, then we can talk about equal treatment.
Back it up further. Require 18-year-old women to sign up selective services. There are PLENTY of military jobs open to them.
I believe that if these institutions are receiving federal money, they should comply with federal laws.
The totalitarian trap liberals set. Take your money by force, then force you to do their bidding when they give it back. Amazes me beyond belief how many people are ready and willing to rush into a totalitarian society.
36:
Oh please.
The Catholic Church only asks to run its own shop its own way.
If the Unitarian hospitals (I'm sure there are scads of them) want to present gift-wrapped condoms to their employees, please demonstrate when and how the Catholic Church has acted to stop them? Answer insisted upon, please.
If you're going to make the argument that some "right" is being violated when employees of a Catholic individual or group doesn't get free birth control, please cite chapter and verse for this so-called "right."
Seeing Red said...
"Catholic Charities already threatened to do so in IL because the State was going to force them to provide gay adoptions."
That suit was dropped:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/illinois-catholic-chariti_n_1093649.html
Because the state already began transferring the charities' case load to other agencies willing to work with same-sex couples months ago, the agency says even a future court decision in favor of their appeal would come "too late." According to an AP report, it had become financially impossible for the charities to continue to pursue the case.
If these institutions are receiving federal money, should they not have to comply with federal laws? I think they should.
I also believe that if the law says they must provide contraceptives then they should either provide the contraceptives or receive the punishment – which I believe is a fine. But that belief does not preclude me from believing the law is bad or that these institutions should not try to change the law or protest the law.
How about the employees at these institutions who are not Catholic? Don't they deserve equal treatment under the law?
Those employees are free to take their skills to non-Catholic employers. Presumably these employees were employed before this troublesome aspect of Obamacare was discovered. Such employees would have had to be dumb as a door knob to not know of the church’s stance on contraceptives when they applied for work at these religious institutions.
36,
I'd say you're making a very risky bet. And you're gambling with about 15-20% of the nation's health care providers. If push comes to shove, I would practically guarantee that the Church will either close the hospitals or sell them rather than actively promote contraception/abortion/sterilization.
For comparison, consider what just happened in Illinois. The state government said that adoption agencies must provide the services for gay couples. The Catholic organization closed.
Maybe you prefer this result, since you (perhaps) think the Church is wrong for limiting its services in this way. But in the end, fewer children are being helped through adoption, just like the Catholic hospitals closing will result in less healthcare services for everyone.
36:
If a Catholic works at a business run by vegetarians, are her rights violated if she can't buy a ham sandwich in the cafeteria? Does "diversity" demand that? Why?
If I go help out at the nearby Baptist church, why can't I sell raffle tickets to the other volunteers--just because Baptists don't like gambling. Oppression!
When the pope visited the Blue Mosque, he took off his shoes. Should have have left them on, insisting on his right to do so?
If I check into the 7th Day Adventist hospital nearby, I bet they won't let me have a beer. Yet I'm a paying customer and I'm a Catholic--we like beer! Who should I hire to sue them, and for how much?
36,
I'd say you're making a very risky bet. And you're gambling with about 15-20% of the nation's health care providers. If push comes to shove, I would practically guarantee that the Church will either close the hospitals or sell them rather than actively promote contraception/abortion/sterilization.
For comparison, consider what just happened in Illinois. The state government said that adoption agencies must provide the services for gay couples. The Catholic organization closed.
Maybe you prefer this result, since you (perhaps) think the Church is wrong for limiting its services in this way. But in the end, fewer children are being helped through adoption, just like the Catholic hospitals closing will result in less healthcare services for everyone.
36,
I'd say you're making a very risky bet. And you're gambling with about 15-20% of the nation's health care providers. If push comes to shove, I would practically guarantee that the Church will either close the hospitals or sell them rather than actively promote contraception/abortion/sterilization.
For comparison, consider what just happened in Illinois. The state government said that adoption agencies must provide the services for gay couples. The Catholic organization closed.
Maybe you prefer this result, since you (perhaps) think the Church is wrong for limiting its services in this way. But in the end, fewer children are being helped through adoption, just like the Catholic hospitals closing will result in less healthcare services for everyone.
What a bizarre idea that employees must live under the religious doctrine of their employers.
That's not "freedom," it's "freedumb."
So no Sharia law but we all have to live under Catholic law. Careful! You never expect the Spanish Inquisition!
Sorry for the extra posting.
AL:
"What a bizarre idea that employees must live under the religious doctrine of their employers."
So you hold that a Jewish organization that hires any non-Jews violates their rights if it keeps a kosher kitchen.
That's dumb.
Once again, I would like chapter-and-verse for the supposed constitutional right to free contraceptives.
And please explain how it is that contraceptives can be in such widespread use, when supposedly no one can get them, until Obama's Great Come-and-get-it Day, next August.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“Oh, let me assure you. The Catholic Church is going to the mat on this one.
There may be some division when it comes to that; but I'm ready to go jail; I'm not alone."
Father Martin,
I don’t doubt that. As I indicated up thread, it seems the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wants to remove the provision for birth control coverage from the health care law altogether and not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. At least according to Anthony Picarello, general council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-08/catholics-contraceptive-mandate/53014864/1
“Look, this isn't the Church's first rodeo with government persecution. We've faced worse. This is something we know about.”
Why does the Church believe it’s being persecuted? The law is not forcing anyone to buy contraceptives. If all the Catholic employees at these institutions are practicing their faith, then the only individuals who would be using these contraceptive services would be the non-Catholic employees. I think the Church as a larger agenda here as alluded to be Anthony Picarello.
I think our smartest president ever has poked the tiger on this. A serious miscalculation, especially if he thinks there is some "compromise" that he can save face with or because he thinks that in the end the Church will cave. They won't cave. There is no room for compromise when core principles are involved. It is this last point that confounds our smartest president ever and many of those who comment on this blog who are principle free.
36:
It's real simple.
Obama is forcing us to pay for providing them.
See, the employer has to send a check, every month or every quarter, to the company that provides "health coverage."
The employer writes and signs the check--using his own money.
The Catholic organizations are the employer.
Mr. Obama says part of what the employer must buy--as part of the package--is free contraceptives for all employees in the pool.
Since the employees have a claim on the assets of the pool, they, too, are being forced to help pay for the contraceptives, regardless of who uses them.
Sorry you missed that detail.
C'mon folks-- we had to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it. Nancy even said so.
The other Barry just wants to eat his waffles anyway, so leave him alone.
By the way, the coverage is not "free" -- the costs are merely blended into the (higher) premium for everyone in the group. Nothing in health care is free.
Mary and 36,
You still have not demonstrated how this denies anyone of their freedom to buy contraceptives. If I'm not mistaken, these employees whose rights are being tragically infringed can go to the nearest Walgreens and purchase a box of condoms. Am I wrong? Where is the injustice?
I got your free contraception.
It's called abstinence.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“If a Catholic works at a business run by vegetarians, are her rights violated if she can't buy a ham sandwich in the cafeteria? Does "diversity" demand that? Why?”
If I go help out at the nearby Baptist church, why can't I sell raffle tickets to the other volunteers--just because Baptists don't like gambling. Oppression!
When the pope visited the Blue Mosque, he took off his shoes. Should have have left them on, insisting on his right to do so?
If I check into the 7th Day Adventist hospital nearby, I bet they won't let me have a beer. Yet I'm a paying customer and I'm a Catholic--we like beer! Who should I hire to sue them, and for how much?”
Father,
How do any of these examples apply to the laws of the U.S. as passed by Congress and signed by the President?
36 "Why does the Church believe it’s being persecuted?"
Because it is being made to do something that is against its very core belief in the sanctity of human life. The belief is so profound that not only is life measured from the moment of conception but the Church holds that couples cannot artificially impede the natural creation of life by the use of contraception.
To compel the church to provide contraception and abortion to its employees via government mandated insurance is tantamount to telling the church to amend its theology, to edit its practices.
The president could have gotten those free contraceptives distributed lots of ways.
He could have given a tax credit.
He could have mandated employers deposit $X in employees HSAs, so they can spend as they like on prescriptions or medical stuff.
He could have a government program to pay the unemployed to pass them out on the street.
Not saying I'd like it or think it was OK; I wouldn't. But it wouldn't be the sort of coerced cooperation with evil that demands resistance.
But one way assaults religious freedom. Guess which he picked?
Again, much ado about nothing as I mentioned a couple days ago. The bishop's directive was read in Catholic church last week. Obama is pro-choice and beat McCain 54/45 in 2008. Shocking many Catholics aren't "strict constructionists" ;) re the tenets of the church as that ended in the '60s and was totally squashed when word got out the Catholic hierarchy was covering up for child molesters the past (50+).
W/out going thru the polls ad nauseam, suffice it to say it's a total loser for Republicans and the more childish their hyperbolic rhetoric, ie Santorum, the more silly they look.
And yes, a few high profile Catholic Dem politicians will break ranks kowtowing to their Catholic electorate to remain viable for re-election.
>
Repeating, these are the same bishops who covered up for deviant child molesters, so they lost the moral high ground some time ago.
>
And yes, I still attend church. :D
>
Remember when "death panels" was a big deal. :zzzz:
>
American voters having a very short term memory notwithstanding.
>
bottom line, the peeps who will not vote for Obama re: this issue were never gonna vote for him regardless.
take care, blessings and go in peace and sin no more ...
(50+) years
Fr Martin Fox said...
"Sorry you missed that detail."
Father Martin,
I didn't miss that detail. I just asked why that is considered "persecution" or as some religious leaders and politicians call it "war on religion".
How about if a majority of those employees agree with the policy? Is that still "persecution"?
36:
"How do any of these examples apply to the laws of the U.S. as passed by Congress and signed by the President?"
The USDA has determined that pork is especially good for the development of children's brains. The congress passes a law signed by the president which compels pork to be served at every school including Madrassas and Hebrew School. Muslim and Jewish meat vendors are compelled to sell the delicious and healthy meat as part of their offerings.
The thing is it's just so unnecessary. Contraceptives are dirt cheap. They didn't need to force the church into a corner over this, they picked this fight for no good reason.
I mean come on. Assuming you are a plan that doesn't cover contraceptives you'd just have to buy them for $9.
And for what it's worth as I understand it this requirement includes coverage for plan B. That's plain abortion and the church will never, not once ever, agree to participate in that in any way whatsoever.
As I said up thread this is foundational teaching in the church. This isn't something they thought up last month.
This sort of intrusive interference in a deeply held long standing matter of faith for tens of millions of Catholics is literally unconscionable.
"What a bizarre idea that employees must live under the religious doctrine of their employers."
There have been enough straw men in this thread to field an army.
And here was President lead from behind this afternoon:
In the Oval Office, President Obama refuses to answer if he stands by contraception rule. Says to reporter: "Come on guys."
Nice.
In the Oval Office, President Obama refuses to answer if he stands by contraception rule. Says to reporter: "Come on guys."
Nice.
Nice what? Too pro-gay? He didn't say what part of the guy.
But the civil law? That doesn't discriminate on sex.
Utter delusion.
The government discriminates every day all the time.
"Where does one go shopping to find that personal choice, if civil law is still operating under the religious laws?"
The Church doesn't dictate civil law. The Church only expects that the government won't compel it to do anything against its beliefs. As of right now, the government does NOT compel the Church to perform gay marriages (and it doesn't). Civil courts in many states can and do perform these services for gay couples.
When you say that the Church dictates civil law, I am guessing that you refer to the fact that the Church takes a position against the legalization of gay marriage. But there is a difference between taking a position and dictating. Members of any church, including clergy, are still represented by their senators and reps, and they can petition government and appeal to voters the same way anyone else can. That doesn't mean that the Church dictates the law.
Mary: "non-religious homosexuals who want a civil marriage and the accompanying social/financial benefits?"
Fine. I think they should get to have all of that. I think they can have weddings and wear rings and adopt children and divorce each other and sign pre-nupts and go to PTA and coach their kids and fight over alimony and drive car pools and cook and clean and do all of the things that married people do with one exception. They will not be able to produce children together. In other words they won't be married married.
And the government will, of course, try to make Fr. Martin Fox perform these very "marriage" ceremonies in very short order.
shiloh,
Don't be too sure this has no effect. My wife, a church-goin' Catholic, married me, a heretic Lutheran, and we always cancel each others' presidential votes. She for the D, me for the R. She even supports Planned Parenthood's mission despite the Church dogma.
But this new step even bothers her. Forcing the church-supported entities to pay for coverage is different. Without articulating why, she thinks it's just not right.
You might be surprised at the number of Catholic Obama voters in 2008 that react emotionally to this overreaching.
shiloh said...
Again, much ado about nothing as I mentioned a couple days ago.
Hysterical.
I guess that's why Obama is promising behind closed doors that religious organizations are going to be exempt.
36:
My examples have to do with your absurd notion that some right is violated when an an organization run according to religious principles has employees not of said faith, and yet the organization continues to operate according its own principles.
Sorry you didn't learn about analogy along the way.
Still asking: chapter and verse on this constitutional right to free contraceptives?
And, sorry, there's some background noise buzzing in this thread, it almost sounds like someone speaking to me, but I am pretty sure its mechanical or a parrot of some sort.
How much do birth control pills cost?
Mary said...
I wonder, since Father feels victimized that his personal choices are being dictated by the state, what he would say to non-religious homosexuals who want a civil marriage and the accompanying social/financial benefits?
This is a silly, unserious question.
No church, anywhere in America, is dictating that gays not be married.
Please do better at making an analogy.
Repeating, these are the same bishops who covered up for deviant child molesters, so they lost the moral high ground some time ago.
Really?
The exact same people?
Care to prove that, clown?
By the way, comments like yours demonstrate you can't make a fact-based argument. So you'll go with the smears.
36:
If the majority of employees at a Baptist university want beer in the cafeteria, are their rights violated if the employer says no?
Yes, please explain, with citations.
Still waiting for the chapter and verse on the constitutional right to free contraceptives.
That's my last riposte to you. You seem to be uninterested in responding to my questions, only posing your own.
"The thing is it's just so unnecessary. Contraceptives are dirt cheap. They didn't need to force the church into a corner over this, they picked this fight for no good reason.
I mean come on. Assuming you are a plan that doesn't cover contraceptives you'd just have to buy them for $9."
Oh, there's my answer.
If this is right, I conclude this is about government bullying, pure and simple.
Michael said...
“Because it is being made to do something that is against its very core belief in the sanctity of human life. The belief is so profound that not only is life measured from the moment of conception but the Church holds that couples cannot artificially impede the natural creation of life by the use of contraception.
To compel the church to provide contraception and abortion to its employees via government mandated insurance is tantamount to telling the church to amend its theology, to edit its practices.”
Well, if all the employees at these institutions held those beliefs, sure. But that’s not the case. I’ve read that even 98 percent of Catholic woman have practice birth control at one time or another. You don’t see a lot of Catholic families with 8, 9or 10 children like you used to see in the 1950s and 1960s.
When the sheriff comes to seize property, because church organizations refused to pay the fine
______________
That's if they refuse to pay the fine. I've seen many statements of bishops, etc. saying that they "will not comply," that is, will not provide contraception coverage, but I read one go on to say that they would pay the fine instead.
But as a matter of principle, if it is wrong to compel one to do an act against moral truth, it is equally wrong to compel them to pay a fine for complying instead with their good conscience.
The proper response should be -- we will not provide contraception coverage, we will not pay any fines, and we will not recognize the authority of any court or other governmental authority to judge whether our actions are right or not.
Frankly, I believe that a very good argument can be made, and should be made -- frankly is the ONLY theologically correct explanation to be made -- that EVERYTHING that a Church-affiliated organization or otherwise Catholic organization does IS an explicitly religious purpose, no less religious than when Fr. Fox celebrates Mass, so as to fall within the exception even as narrowly written by the Obama Administration.
Everything a Catholic organization does is done as a matter of Catholic Faith. It is the express mission of the Church to be a light of Christ to a dark world. And, far from being a merely passive member of the Church, in Confirmation, every single Catholic is made an active participant in that mission of the Church to be a witness for Christ, as stated by Jesus Himself (Acts 1:8).
And the Church, by and through individual Catholics, accomplishes that mission of being a witness for Christ by not only preaching the Good News, but also by allowing the light of Christ to shine through them in their actions and deeds, including, among other things, by various corporal acts of mercy -- feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, providing care to the sick, etc. At the same time, Catholics are called to see the face of Jesus in each person that they do such acts of mercy for, whether that person is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, an agnostic, an atheist, or an anti-Catholic bigot.
The Catholic Church did not establish the modern hospital system, the modern university system, the parochial school system, systems to provide services to orphans and others needing adoption, and on and on for the fun of it, the Church did not establish these things merely to have side businesses to operate. These organizations and institutions are FUNDAMENTAL to accomplishing the mission of the Church. They don't do these things for money. THEY DO THEM FOR CHRIST.
36,
You're missing the point. Forcing the church to pay for contraceptives is going too far.
Jay:
I fully expect the President--at the moment of maximum advantage--to offer grandly, as is suitable for our most gracious sovereign lord, a generous concession to religious organizations.
And it may work.
However, I wouldn't be too certain at this point.
The principle position--which many bishops have articulated--is that NO ONE should be forced in this manner. No employer.
Employers have the choice, right now, to offer health insurance plans including contraception. Why force them, under pain of law.
(Note: my understanding is that the new law is riddled with grandfather clauses and thresholds, so that actually many employers can and will escape a mandate to include contraceptives. But I am hazy on the details there. Nevertheless, some will be forced to provide coverage--and to pay for it--that violates their conscience.)
You are talking about the suit. I'm talking about the service. I know they lost the suit. What u fail to realize is how much CC picks up of the cost & follow up services.
Fr Fox wrote: When the sheriff comes to seize property, because church organizations refused to pay the fine...how will those optics be? Obama = Henry VIII.
Well, he's already role-played Messiah and Caesar with a straight face and it's unlikely he watches "Downton Abbey" so donning a period codpiece might help him with the Anglophile set.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“My examples have to do with your absurd notion that some right is violated when an an organization run according to religious principles has employees not of said faith, and yet the organization continues to operate according its own principles.
Sorry you didn't learn about analogy along the way.
Still asking: chapter and verse on this constitutional right to free contraceptives?”
Father Martin,
The constitutional right is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“And, sorry, there's some background noise buzzing in this thread, it almost sounds like someone speaking to me, but I am pretty sure its mechanical or a parrot of some sort.”
You seem to be very condescending for a follower of Christ.
Bender:
You're probably right, there are those who will say--and maybe have said--we'll just pay the fines.
First, I counsel against it. I say make them come and seize our property. Make them arrest bishops, priests and nuns.
My advice to the bishops is to gather at the White House and say, "we're here to turn ourselves in. Arrest us now."
Second, even then, the fines will be crippling. The anti-Catholic crowd, to whom the Tyrant is appealing, even if he himself isn't a bigot, dream of vast riches behind the cloister walls. They're in for a surprise.
If every parochial school in the U.S. closed down -- not saying that'll happen but if ever it did -- local taxpayers will face big bite. All those students will need to be educated at taxpayer expense; and the money their parents pay in taxes is already spent.
Same with our hospitals; same with our charities.
"Don't be too sure this has no effect.
But this new step even bothers her."
Lots of things about Obama bothers me, but again, elections come down to choices and all of the conservative hyperbole re: this issue will be forgotten in a couple mos.
Again, the economy will decide this election, but if Reps want to highlight their extremism on social issue ie gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion, mittens not caring about the poor, etc. etc. ~ all the better! :D
Let the games begin ... after Labor Day. :)
"Note: my understanding is that the new law is riddled with grandfather clauses and thresholds ..."
If you're a friend of the administration, you get a waiver. It's one of the biggest problems with this law, which you'd think people like 36 ("What does that have to do with being denied equal treatment under the law") would understand.
Original Mike-
At the local Kroger they sell for $4 per month. You can get a 90 day prescription filled for $10.
MayBee, Hoosier Daddy:
I agree with MayBee about the apparent free=access equivalency. As if women don't have access to birth control unless it's free.
Following that logic I wonder what the left would think if the Obama HHS told Planned Parenthood that they had to provide all their reproductive services at no charge.
Any woman can walk into any PP clinic and demand and receive, absolutely free, the pill, IUDs, diaphragms, prophylactics, Plan B, an abortion... No charge at all.
Way back when I was young and on the pill, my insurance didn't cover it. I had to pay out of pocket for my prescription. Insurance prescription plans only started covering the pill when there was a huge outcry over covering erectile dysfunction drugs but not covering birth control.
36:
You claim the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to free contraceptives.
Can you cite anything from the debates on the amendment remotely on point? Yes, I realize birth control didn't exist; but I'm pretty sure condoms did.
Can you cite a Supreme Court case in which free contraceptives were identified as part of "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment?
I sure missed that case.
And I'm sorry you think me condescending. Not my intention.
Sorry, I meant, birth control pills didn't exist during the debates over the 14th Amendment; lots of birth control methods surely did.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“If the majority of employees at a Baptist university want beer in the cafeteria, are their rights violated if the employer says no?”
Again, how does that example relate to U.S. law which is what this issue concerns.
“Yes, please explain, with citations.
Still waiting for the chapter and verse on the constitutional right to free contraceptives.
That's my last riposte to you. You seem to be uninterested in responding to my questions, only posing your own.”
Again, as I stated from the beginning, to me it’s an issue of equal treatment under the law for those employees in these institutions who are not Catholic. Equal treatment under the law is covered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm still trying to figure how The Church coerced all those people to work for them. Did the hold guns to their heads? Brainwash them? How can their employees ever survive the brutality of using condoms!instead of freebies?
My advice to the bishops is to gather at the White House and say, "we're here to turn ourselves in. Arrest us now."
We need a few good John Fishers and Thomas Mores right now. Not to mention a couple of Clemens August von Galens.
So, the question to the bishops is -- "Quo vadis?
"At the local Kroger they sell for $4 per month. You can get a 90 day prescription filled for $10."
Then this isn't about women being denied contraception. It's about this Administration being resentful of an institution not falling in line. And it's about making an example of them.
Equal treatment under the law is covered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
And the Fourteenth Amendment applies to STATE ACTION, i.e. the government, not private persons or institutions, much less religious organizations.
This is fundamental Con Law I kind of stuff. You don't even need to go to law school to know that. They even teach it in high school civics class.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“You claim the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to free contraceptives.
Can you cite anything from the debates on the amendment remotely on point? Yes, I realize birth control didn't exist; but I'm pretty sure condoms did.
Can you cite a Supreme Court case in which free contraceptives were identified as part of "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment?
I sure missed that case.
And I'm sorry you think me condescending. Not my intention.”
Father Martin,
This issue involves a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which is Public Law 111-148. If non-Catholic employees in these institutions cannot enjoy the benefits of this law, are they not being denied equal treatment under the law?
As far as Supreme Court cases, none exist that I’m aware of regarding contraceptives. However, I’m sure there will be if this issue continues.
"As far as Supreme Court cases, none exist that I’m aware of regarding contraceptives. However, I’m sure there will be if this issue continues."
Oh, I hope so ...
36:
I think you chummed the water on that claim about equal protection.
I'll tag someone else for now; but you have my word I'll give you an answer later if no one else's is forthcoming.
I tell you one mandate that ought to be strenuously enforced --
That people know how the hell to put excerpts of prior comments in italics or otherwise clearly set them off, so that you can tell where the prior comment ends and the inane response begins.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“I think you chummed the water on that claim about equal protection.
I'll tag someone else for now; but you have my word I'll give you an answer later if no one else's is forthcoming.”
Well Father, I don’t know. It seems to me that all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. I don’t think an institution can just determine it will not comply with a federal law. I guess the courts will have to sort this one out assuming it continues as an issue.
"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"
Now you know.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Jay:
I fully expect the President--at the moment of maximum advantage--to offer grandly, as is suitable for our most gracious sovereign lord, a generous concession to religious organizations.
Possibly.
But you have to remember he's getting advice on this from abortion fanatics. Also remember Obama as a state senator he fought against the Illinois state version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA).
Not one senator — neither Boxer, Clinton, nor Kennedy — voted against BAIPA at the federal level. Even NARAL did not oppose it.
Obama opposed it when he faced this issue.
Anyway, perhaps some good news:
A handful of Senate Democrats have split with President Obama’s controversial birth-control mandate and slammed the administration’s requirement that church-affiliated employers cover contraceptives.
The five Democrats in the Senate expressing concern about some parts of the administration’s policy include, most recently, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, who have spoken publicly about their unhappiness with the mandate.
“This was a bone-headed decision by HHS,” Sen. Ben Nelson said of the new Health and Human Services mandates, according to the Nebraska Radio Network.
36fsfiend said...
Bender said...
"Equal treatment under the law is covered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
And the Fourteenth Amendment applies to STATE ACTION, i.e. the government, not private persons or institutions, much less religious organizations.
This is fundamental Con Law I kind of stuff. You don't even need to go to law school to know that. They even teach it in high school civics class."
I believe the concept of incorporation applies. I cannot avoid complying with a federal law by claiming that since I'm a private institution that law doesn't apply.
We are talking about a federal law in this case, right?
There is NO constitutional right, under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, or any other provision, that requires that the exercise of some right be subsidized by the government or any private individual.
This, too, is fundamental constitutional law.
Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983)(speech funding); Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)(prohibition on abortion funding); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)(prohibition on abortion funding); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)(medical counseling).
I believe the concept of incorporation applies.
Dude, I'm going to start charging you legal fees in a moment.
OK, the concept of incorporation -- which of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights do you say is incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment here, and how the hell is that relevant anyway??
I swear, people see an episode or two of Law and Order or Ally McBeal and they think they know the law.
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun. So said the U.S. Supreme Court not so long ago.
Waiting for the everyone-must-get-a-free-gun mandate.
Equal protection, baby!
grackle said...
“I also believe that if the law says they must provide contraceptives then they should either provide the contraceptives or receive the punishment – which I believe is a fine. But that belief does not preclude me from believing the law is bad or that these institutions should not try to change the law or protest the law.”
Grackle,
I’m late responding to you. Certainly, I agree that they should go through the process of changing the law. I don’t agree with inflammatory statements such as labeling this issue as “war on religion” particular given the number of Catholic women who claim they have practiced birth control.
“Those employees are free to take their skills to non-Catholic employers. Presumably these employees were employed before this troublesome aspect of Obamacare was discovered. Such employees would have had to be dumb as a door knob to not know of the church’s stance on contraceptives when they applied for work at these religious institutions.”
I think that is easier said than done given the diverse workforces and populations that these institutions serve.
So why doesn't "equal protection" mean everyone should get paid the same amount?
The argument here is that a constitutional right is violated by a variation in cash-value in compensation that is likely in the hundreds of dollars per annum.
I.e., Employee A at secular hospital gets $X+Y (Y equal to several hundred dollars' worth of free contraceptives.
Employee B at Catholic hospital merely get $X--no contraceptives.
Claim is this differential--equal to Y, and worth a few hundred bucks--is a constitutional violation.
If so, then how does it not follow that variations in the value of X--the rest of the compensation--are not even more in violation.
Ergo: the 14th requires everyone in America to be paid the same amount.
Now we know what the 2nd Term will be about.
Bender said...
“There is NO constitutional right, under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, or any other provision, that requires that the exercise of some right be subsidized by the government or any private individual.”
No right is being subsidized by the government. The law as it presently stands stipulates the employers must provide insurance plans that cover contraceptives and associated co-pays. If the benefits of that law are denied to a group of individuals because of where they work, in this case religious institutions, then I would say they are being denied equal treatment under the law.
Catholics are gonna lose on this one if they resist, big time.
When a high school drop-out decides to do brain surgery on himself, because he thinks he knows as much as any surgeon, you'd think that at some point after cutting into his head, he'd start to say to himself, "maybe I don't know that the hell I'm doing here" and he would just stop, rather than sawing his skull off and poking around in his brain with a screwdriver and pair of plyers.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun. So said the U.S. Supreme Court not so long ago.
Waiting for the everyone-must-get-a-free-gun mandate.
Equal protection, baby!”
Father,
The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. There’s nothing about a right to free weapons.
36,
This is a classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Incorporation relates to the Bill of Rights applying against the states as well as the federal government. It cannot be used to touch on action by a private actor. Again, Con Law I. I can loan you my Sullivan & Gunther case book and show you.
Equal protection clause is a protection against state or federal government action ONLY. It is not a remedy against private corporations. The commerce clause is the mechanism by which the statute applies to private actors. However it includes no equal protection clause.
Also, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, but it is a leap to go from this basic principle to say that it can force a private (and religious, no less) institution to do something that is finds morally objectionable.
I'm totally going to run with this idea: I believe the government should require the Catholic Church provide insurance that pays for contraception. And the government should require all parents to have their children get every FDA approved vaccination.
36,
This is a classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Incorporation relates to the Bill of Rights applying against the states as well as the federal government. It cannot be used to touch on action by a private actor. Again, Con Law I. I can loan you my Sullivan & Gunther case book and show you.
Equal protection clause is a protection against state or federal government action ONLY. It is not a remedy against private corporations. The commerce clause is the mechanism by which the statute applies to private actors. However it includes no equal protection clause.
Also, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, but it is a leap to go from this basic principle to say that it can force a private (and religious, no less) institution to do something that is finds morally objectionable.
Dang double post again. The Internet connection posted that message twice and erased my other post.
Anyway, the 1960s Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut held that a state cannot outlaw contraceptives.
Obviously this is VERY different from saying that a state (much less a private institution) must provide contraceptives as a right.
"The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. There’s nothing about a right to free weapons."
You can't see the forest for the trees, can you 36? That's EXACTLY the point Father is making--even if the Constitution protects a right to buy contraception, there is no right to have it provided free of charge.
yoobee said...
"This is a classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Incorporation relates to the Bill of Rights applying against the states as well as the federal government. It cannot be used to touch on action by a private actor. Again, Con Law I. I can loan you my Sullivan & Gunther case book and show you.
Equal protection clause is a protection against state or federal government action ONLY. It is not a remedy against private corporations. The commerce clause is the mechanism by which the statute applies to private actors. However it includes no equal protection clause.
Also, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, but it is a leap to go from this basic principle to say that it can force a private (and religious, no less) institution to do something that is finds morally objectionable."
Very well. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Alex interjected...
Catholics are gonna lose on this one if they resist, big time.
Disagree. Alex, just imagine yourself in the shoes of those whom you despise so much.
My sense is that Obama will lose more votes on this than he will gain, unless he's counting on there being a huge measure of approval from poor immigrant Catholics. Failing that, there must be some other reason to stir the pot on this like showing his cajones to the hard core feminist supporters.
(sorry about the bad visual in the last sentence of my last comment)
yoobee said...
“You can't see the forest for the trees, can you 36? That's EXACTLY the point Father is making--even if the Constitution protects a right to buy contraception, there is no right to have it provided free of charge.”
We keep referring to the right to contraceptives. I’m not arguing that individuals have a right to contraception. I arguing that the law, as currently written, stipulates that employers must provide insurance plans that cover contraceptives. If a religious exemption is carved out for religious institutions that employ people who do not adhere to the teachings of the faith in question, then my position is that those individuals are being discriminated against. If the government carves out a religious exception for laws, isn't that essentially establishing a religion, especially if that exception affects a large number of people who do not belong to that religion?
I guess they can elect to leave the institution if it really is that big of an issue to them, but I don’t think that would realistically happen.
"I still have not heard a justifiable reason why birth control should be covered by health insurance."
A very good friend of mine suffered from painful, cystic, acne starting in her teens. She was prescribed tetracycline, retin A, and tried every other remedy under the sun, including accutane, a drug with very nasty side effects. You know what the doctor finally realized worked the best for her? You guessed it, oral contraceptives.
If the primary reason the drug is prescribed is for other medical purposes, can the patient still get coverage?
I also had another friend in high school who suffered with exceptionally painful and irregular mentral cramps. Her doctor also prescribed oral contraceptives to regulate her period.
I know, I know, EW! gross, girl stuff! But, honestly, these drugs can provide other medical benefits to women than just preventing pregnancy.
36. " I’ve read that even 98 percent of Catholic woman have practice birth control at one time or another. You don’t see a lot of Catholic families with 8, 9or 10 children like you used to see in the 1950s and 1960s."
Let us say these statistics are true. Those matters are between the individuals and their God as mediated by the Church. The government has no business Imposing regulations based on its interpretation of what people believe.
I think you agree with Obama that if people sin in a certain way consistently the action is no longer a sin. You both misunderstand.
Well this means no more religious exemptions for shots or conscious objectors.
36,
An exception based on moral objections wouldn't be discrimination because it is affecting all of the employees equally. Whether an employee is an atheist, mormon, Catholic who takes contraception, or whatever else, all of the employees are being treated equally by their employer. Discrimination would occur if the employer said we will not cover contraception for the catholic, but we will cover it for the athiest.
To your second point, this would not "establish" a religion, any more than allowing a Muslim to opt out of selective services for religious reasons establishes a religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment reflects a respect for religious institutions, but prohibits Congress from saying that it will only allow people to be Catholic, or citizens can only serve in Congress if they are Protestant. Separation of church and state was never meant to equate to "conform or die".
Fiend wrote If the government carves out a religious exception for laws, isn't that essentially establishing a religion, especially if that exception affects a large number of people who do not belong to that religion?
Even it were "establishing a religion" it seems at odds with the second clause "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by dictating the terms of "free exercise."
Sorry, my last post should have also referenced the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, as that is probably more germane to my second point.
In short they don't care. All this for nothing.
It seems to that Obama should grant an exemption and then promise "You can keep your religious health care if you want to" and then go about undermining it. That's the M.O. in other related healthcare issues.
Michael said...
“Let us say these statistics are true. Those matters are between the individuals and their God as mediated by the Church. The government has no business Imposing regulations based on its interpretation of what people believe.”
I think those statistics undermined the credibility of those religious leaders who claim that this new law is a “war on religion”. If that number of their own followers don’t adhere to the teachings of the faith I think the religious leader need to address that issue.
I also question the moral leadership of those individuals when I read articles like the one below:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/cardinal-egan-criticized-for-retracting-apology-on-sex-abuse-crisis/
Ellen,
You raise a good point. However, my guess is that the contraception would still not be covered even if for other reasons. It would probably be too easy for the insured person to skirt the rule just by saying that they needed the prescription for acne. In addition, the cost of contraceptives is not that expensive--if someone is concerned about their acne, we are not talking about helping the poorest of the poor who cannot otherwise afford it. The person will likely have the means to pay $15 for the pill.
Hate to see contraception taking a hit so close to Valentine's -- one of the contraception high holidays.
re:
IDEA #4
If you like wars of choice, pay for them yourself. Why do I have to pay for it?
nonono, I think garage is on to something.
Now, I never thought I'd seem him advocating for a 0% federal tax rate, but I can get behind it in a big way!
No one pays any federal taxes. That way, no one pays for anything at the federal level for anything they don't approve of.
That pushes all sorts of things back to the States.
But the federal govt has some things it must do. Where, oh, where will it get the money?!?!
Well, there are liberals and conservatives. Conservatives give to charities in a big way. If we were to pay $0 in federal taxes, I bet there would be millions of conservative households that would still pay voluntary contributions to the federal govt to keep the military running, and other vital services.
But we also know that liberals who advocate higher taxes not only never pay an extra cent in voluntary taxes, they also are extremely niggardly in giving to charity, and (judging from the Obama administration), rarely even pay the taxes they do owe.
That means that the Left's favorite programs, like HUD, Fannie Mae, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, PBS/NPR, etc, will be cut off from funding.
Now, maybe this is because garage is too stupid to realize the implications of his short-sighted tit-for-tat retort.
But I think his proposal is something all conservatives and libertarians would agree to!
So remember in future conversations with garage: he is a hypocrite or a liar if doesn't continue to support lowering the federal tax rate to 0% like he did today.
36,
I think you are confusing the person who follows (or claims to follow) the religion with the religious belief. The two are not the same, and the religious belief is no less important or valid simply because a few, several, or even the majority have failed to live up to the belief at some point in their lives. No religion ever says that a adherent must be perfect, and cannot make mistakes as a human.
You may question the credibility of religious leaders; that is still separate from the beliefs that they may teach. Joe Paterno made some serious errors during his time as a football coach. Does that mean that he his strategy and beliefs about how to win football games was wrong or erroneous?
yoobee said...
“An exception based on moral objections wouldn't be discrimination because it is affecting all of the employees equally. Whether an employee is an atheist, mormon, Catholic who takes contraception, or whatever else, all of the employees are being treated equally by their employer. Discrimination would occur if the employer said we will not cover contraception for the catholic, but we will cover it for the athiest.”
To your second point, this would not "establish" a religion, any more than allowing a Muslim to opt out of selective services for religious reasons establishes a religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment reflects a respect for religious institutions, but prohibits Congress from saying that it will only allow people to be Catholic, or citizens can only serve in Congress if they are Protestant. Separation of church and state was never meant to equate to "conform or die".”
Yoobee,
Unless I signed a clause stipulating that I must adhere to the teachings of the faith of the institution where I was employed, I certainly would feel discriminated against if a law was passed and I was unable to receive the benefits of that law because of where I worked.
Your example regarding the Muslim and selective service describes a situation where an individual takes advantage of a religious exemption because of his own beliefs. If the religious institutions get an exemption from this new law, it will also impact individuals who are not members of that religious faith and who may actually agree with the law as written. Hence my point about blurring the separation of church and state.
36,
Regardless of what you would "feel" about the situation, that wouldn't be discrimination (definitely not legal discrimination; probably not discrimination according to the dictionary either). The person is free to leave that employer any time in order to obtain employment somewhere that offers the services they want. The fact that some employers cover dental but others don't is not discrimination. The law firm across town pays more than my current firm for someone in the same position--that's not discrimination against me.
The fact that a law is passed providing a benefit that I don't qualify for is also not discrimination. What if the law only mandated coverage of the pill, but not condoms or any other type of device; is that discrimination against men who work there?
Also, I don't think you know enough about the situation. In most (if not all) institutions run by the Church, the employee IS required to sign a statement that they will uphold the values of the Catholic Church, even if they do not believe. I would bet most people don't think twice about the importance of the statement before signing it.
36. Liberals think hypocrisy the worst sin because they do not believe in absolutes. When those who do show their humanity by falling short, by sinning in the old venacular, the liberal crys hypocrite and remounts the high horse. The liberal will never get it.
yoobee said...
“I think you are confusing the person who follows (or claims to follow) the religion with the religious belief. The two are not the same, and the religious belief is no less important or valid simply because a few, several, or even the majority have failed to live up to the belief at some point in their lives. No religion ever says that a adherent must be perfect, and cannot make mistakes as a human.”
You may question the credibility of religious leaders; that is still separate from the beliefs that they may teach. Joe Paterno made some serious errors during his time as a football coach. Does that mean that he his strategy and beliefs about how to win football games was wrong or erroneous?
Yoobee,
Doesn’t that reflect poorly on the religious leadership in getting the tenants of the faith across to their followers? If the members of a particular faith are not following their teachings, why should I as a nonmember take seriously such inflammatory allegations such as “war on religion” from these same leaders?
Joe Paterno failed on a moral level. So I would certainly question his opinion about moral issues. Football would be another issue altogether. The religious leaders are arguing about a moral issue and the statistic regarding noncompliance, if correct, are demonstrating they are failing to convince their own members to adhere to the principles of that moral issue.
Regarding your second point: if they agree with the law as written, they are not being treated differently by the law. The law affords them the opportunity to take advantage of it with an employer who qualifies for the coverage.
Someone who is working for a Catholic institution currently is not entitled to this coverage, although some employers offer it. Obviously, if it was such an important thing for them, they could have left at anytime. It is odd to think that every employee at every company automatically is entitled to enjoy the benefit of a newly passed law, without qualification.
Another example: some laws only require a certain type of safety equipment for workers in some work places, but the equipment is optional in other types of work places. A worker in an excepted industry is not provided the safety equipment by the employer, because the employer decides not to provide it. The worker is not being discriminated against; if he wants to enjoy the benefit of the new law, he can go to one of the other work places.
yoobee said...
36,
Regardless of what you would "feel" about the situation, that wouldn't be discrimination (definitely not legal discrimination; probably not discrimination according to the dictionary either). The person is free to leave that employer any time in order to obtain employment somewhere that offers the services they want. The fact that some employers cover dental but others don't is not discrimination. The law firm across town pays more than my current firm for someone in the same position--that's not discrimination against me.
The fact that a law is passed providing a benefit that I don't qualify for is also not discrimination. What if the law only mandated coverage of the pill, but not condoms or any other type of device; is that discrimination against men who work there?
Also, I don't think you know enough about the situation. In most (if not all) institutions run by the Church, the employee IS required to sign a statement that they will uphold the values of the Catholic Church, even if they do not believe. I would bet most people don't think twice about the importance of the statement before signing it.
Yoobee,
Well, like I stated earlier, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Leaving the employer may not be a realistic course of action depending on the individual’s particular situation. Hence, they may be forced to accept the restriction imposed because of the religious exemption. That’s part of my point. Again, as written, the law applies to most employers.
You are correct about me not being an employee at a religious institution. However, I would probably not work at an institution where I had to sign a clause stating that I will adhere to religious beliefs that are not my own. That almost sounds un-American.
36,
It may reflect poorly on their ability as teachers, but it doesn't change the validity of the truth that is taught. My religion is not a belief in my priest; it is a belief in values and teachings that transcend the priest.
If the members do not take the minister or priest seriously, that is their problem, and they are not likely true Catholics. Most people can separate the teaching from the teacher. A bad math teacher who, try as he may, cannot get through to a student, does not invalidate the laws of mathematics.
Of course, the ancillary point to be made here is that, if a person claims to be Catholic but actively rejects the core teachings of their faith, are they really Catholic? I think not.
but in this case, there is no restriction: the employees do not currently enjoy that benefit. How could they have an expectation of suddenly having contraception be covered when their original expectation (from day 1 at their job) was that it would not be covered? Like I said, if it was a big deal, they would have gone somewhere else to begin with, since some employers cover it.
I didn't say that workers had to "adhere" to the religious beliefs, only that they must uphold them. That is, they cannot misrepresent the institution's beliefs, or interfere with the institutions ability to carry out its religious mission.
As a consumer of Hospital services on occasion, I would encourage the Catholics to fight for institutions like their hospitals that allow a Christian Faith atmosphere.
Those institutions are merciful, life affirming. and dedicated to healing.
In my experience, the secular and for profit medical industry falls short of those standards every time.
Atheists and Marxist materialists frankly don't give a damn who lives or dies. Abortions are done by them by dozens in the operating rooms once set aside for healing people. And they can't get enough of it.
Obama being an atheist and a Marxist materialist will long march on until he has destroyed Catholic influence, Baptist influence, Presbyterian influence, and Methodist influence in medical care.
Death panels vs. Christian institutions is the next bout on Obama's Destroy America card.
It will be interesting to watch Obama and his government owned media try to Demonize the Catholics. I believe the Catholics do a good exorcism when necessary.
yoobee said...
“Regarding your second point: if they agree with the law as written, they are not being treated differently by the law. The law affords them the opportunity to take advantage of it with an employer who qualifies for the coverage.”
Yes, but I would venture to say that a number of employees will agree with the lawa as written. Polls indicatwe about 60 percent of the general population and just under 60 percent of Catholics agree with the law requiring religious institutions provide insurance plans that cover contraception.
“Someone who is working for a Catholic institution currently is not entitled to this coverage, although some employers offer it. Obviously, if it was such an important thing for them, they could have left at anytime. It is odd to think that every employee at every company automatically is entitled to enjoy the benefit of a newly passed law, without qualification.”
Again, it depends on the individual’s own unique situation if they can leave employment or not so I wouldn’t say they would leave if they were unhappy about the exemption. It depends on many things.
“Another example: some laws only require a certain type of safety equipment for workers in some work places, but the equipment is optional in other types of work places. A worker in an excepted industry is not provided the safety equipment by the employer, because the employer decides not to provide it. The worker is not being discriminated against; if he wants to enjoy the benefit of the new law, he can go to one of the other work places.”
Well this issue revolves around a fundamental right concerning religious beliefs. Individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion in question will be denied benefits if an exemption for the religion is provided. For someone who believes in the use of birth control, this exemption will deny them a benefit granted them under federal law. I guess if they in fact signed a clause stipulating they must adhere to the tenets of the faith of the institution where they work, it will not be a factor. But if there was no clause signed, I would still say they are being discriminated against because of where they work.
"The liberal will never get it."
So, if true, Michael, you're just here to agree w/cons 24/7, redundancy notwithstanding. :D
"Obama being an atheist and a Marxist materialist will long march on until he has destroyed Catholic influence, Baptist influence, Presbyterian influence, and Methodist influence in medical care.
yada yada yada"
So idiotically hyperbolic, let's post it twice. 'Cause who doesn't enjoy conservative nonsensical whining the second time around.
Although one would hope Althouse's herd would try to be a little nore imaginative w/their childish name calling.
Andy R,
The thrust of all your questions I've read so far (I haven't read all 300 comments on this thread, so you may change tack somewhere) equates to: do people have the right to choose what services, and to whom, they provide? The obvious, and right, answer is yes. If you think otherwise, then you are in favor of slavery. Thinking that anyone (including the government) can simply dictate what work you do, and for whom, regardless of what work you want to do and for whom, is the very definition of slavery.
It's an easy question when asked like this: do individuals have the right to choose what work they want to do and for whom they want to work? The answer is obviously yes. The answer doesn't change when talking about Catholics, which is nothing more than a collection individuals.
In addition to the religious freedom drum many are beating here, it's about plain old freedom. All impositions by any government requiring any institution to provide (or not provide) a service is a denial of freedom.
Shiloh. When i wrote that liberals will never get it i was referring to secular liberals who conflate humans failing to always be true to their beliefs with hypocrits. That in no way suggests i always side with conservatives as anyone who has read my comments would see. You tend to falsely equate quips with reason and are likely unaware that your editorial lens is usually cloudy. You give yourself too manyhugs for considering your remarks cute and contrary.
If you actually read the many points of view of conservatives on this blog you would see a divergence of opinions supported by some very reasoned arguments. Your comments do not appear to have had much thought beyond the obvious sophomoric retort. Often off point.
36,
I'll refer to my earlier post pointing out that they are not typically required to adhere to the religious beliefs, only to uphold. Even if there is no clause, this is still not discrimination, regardless of your definition of the term.
And I don't think it matters whether it is a point of moral objection or not. In the work place safety case, the exempted employer decides not to provide the safety equipment because of the cost (is this a more valid reason than a moral objection?), even though the worker believes that the equipment is necessary or wants to take advantage of it. The employee still has the option to buy his/her own equipment.
yoobee said...
"I'll refer to my earlier post pointing out that they are not typically required to adhere to the religious beliefs, only to uphold. Even if there is no clause, this is still not discrimination, regardless of your definition of the term.
And I don't think it matters whether it is a point of moral objection or not. In the work place safety case, the exempted employer decides not to provide the safety equipment because of the cost (is this a more valid reason than a moral objection?), even though the worker believes that the equipment is necessary or wants to take advantage of it. The employee still has the option to buy his/her own equipment."
yoobee,
And as I mentioned up thread, I think a bigger agenda is going on here, to wit:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/rubio-bill-limit-birth-control-access-millions
From the article:
"If passed, (Rubio's) bill would allow any institution or corporation to cut off birth control coverage simply by citing religious grounds. It has 26 cosponsors in the Senate; a similar proposal sponsored by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) has 148 cosponsors in the House. On Wednesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed to repeal Obama's rule, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pointed to Rubio's bill as a potential model for doing so.
yoobee said...
“ It may reflect poorly on their ability as teachers, but it doesn't change the validity of the truth that is taught. My religion is not a belief in my priest; it is a belief in values and teachings that transcend the priest.
If the members do not take the minister or priest seriously, that is their problem, and they are not likely true Catholics. Most people can separate the teaching from the teacher. A bad math teacher who, try as he may, cannot get through to a student, does not invalidate the laws of mathematics.
Of course, the ancillary point to be made here is that, if a person claims to be Catholic but actively rejects the core teachings of their faith, are they really Catholic? I think not.”
Yoobee,
I personal think it is a sign of the times. I recall seeing Catholic families with 5, 6, 7 or even 12 children in the 60s and 70s. Now Catholics seem to be restricting their families to 2 or 3 children max. Obviously economics is a factor. And I serious doubt all these folks are completely giving up sex.
Are they no longer considered Catholic because this? I don’t know.
About employees signing a promise...
Non-Catholic employees are certainly not obliged to observe Catholic teachings! We don't make them fast on Ash Wednesday, we don't make them make an Easter duty once a year, etc.
But, as mentioned, they can't bring discredit on the organization by contrary behavior--so if one of my teachers goes gets married to someone of the same sex? Bye bye.
They do have to work in a Catholic environment. They bring the kids to Mass; they don't have to pray. They won't find meat in the cafeteria on Fridays--all year...
And if they want contraceptives, we won't buy them. If they can't figure out where to get them, they should be fired for not being very bright.
Shiloh....what you write off as idiotic hyperbole is what many Christians sincerely believe about Comrade Obama.
Since Politics is the struggle for the hearts and the minds of voters, this is a very big deal among a host of hearts and minds.
Tell me again why Obama wants to challenge the Catholics?
Does he really have a higher principle that says Catholics are denying to the American Secular State its natural power to rule over them?
If so, then that is an clearly impeachable offense for a man who took an oath to uphold a Constitution that includes the second amendment.
Does that also sound like an idiotic hyperbole to you? Hide and watch.
Divergence yes Michael, but never from you. If you can provide evidence, I'll retract.
Happy trails ...
tradguy, I asked for imaginative childish name calling and you spew Comrade Obama.
take care
It is all about liberty. If liberty is important to you, then you fight to preserve it. If you don't care that much about liberty, then you permit your government to grow ever more powerful and relentlessly shrink your liberty.
In the USA, conservatives and libertarians are the people who care about liberty and work to preserve it. Dems don't care so much about liberty and actively work to shrink our liberty by increasing the size and power of the government.
36,
That agenda may apply in the case of Rubio's bill. I only have a basic knowledge of that bill, and I cannot speak to that.
But you can't say that the Church has an agenda here; they are simply asking to continue doing what they have always done and not be mandated to violate their religious beliefs in order to conform to a law. After all, this whole debate started based on the actions of the Obama administration.
Fr. Martin,
Thanks for clarifying the point.
Steve Koch
Were you shouting from the mountain tops during the (8) years of cheney/bush when your personal liberties were eroded every which way to Sunday!
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Or were you silent ie IOKIYAR president!
yoobee said...
“That agenda may apply in the case of Rubio's bill. I only have a basic knowledge of that bill, and I cannot speak to that.
But you can't say that the Church has an agenda here; they are simply asking to continue doing what they have always done and not be mandated to violate their religious beliefs in order to conform to a law. After all, this whole debate started based on the actions of the Obama administration.”
yoobee,
From my initial post, according to Anthony Picarello, general council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-08/catholics-contraceptive-mandate/53014864/1
From the article:
“(A year's extension to the implementation of the provision) was no consolation to Catholic leaders. The White House is ‘all talk, no action’ on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. ‘There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,’ Picarello said. ‘We're not going to do anything until this is fixed.’
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for ‘good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this.’
‘If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate,’ Picarello said.”
Picarello seems to be implying that the mandate is even a problem if you work in non-religious institutions like Taco Bell. According to Ruboi himself, he first learned about the new insurance law while attending Mass where the priest discussed it during his sermon.
I have no doubt the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would be overjoyed if there was a national band against contraception. It’s a bit worrisome the amount of influence this religious institution has in the crafting of legislation in this country.
Test
Father M. Fox: I found your comments in this thread very clear and interesting to read. Thanks.
Shiloh,
During the Bush II years I wrote that the GOP should not promote an imperial presidency. I have consistently favored a reduction in the size and power of the federal government, no matter which party controls the prez.
I have no doubt that a very large majority of conservatives and libertarians favor a reduction in the size and power of the federal government.
I don't think its an agenda to want to amend the law so that organizations aren't required to offer coverage or services they don't want to provide.
I can disagree with the individual mandate altogether because I think it is unconstitutional. I think this just means that I have a personal opinion regarding proposed legislation.
Fr. Martin Fox: Thank you!
Steve Koch, glad to hear you are consistent in your ideology regardless of political party.
Assume you were really disappointed w/the last administration re: privacy and bloated bureaucracy as a limited govt. ideologue.
No matter how one feels about birth control and abortion, every American should be repulsed by Obama trying to force Catholic hospitals to violate their conscience and religion.
No matter how one feels about abortion, every American should be repulsed by the undemocratic and unconstitutional way an activist supreme court forced abortion rights on our nation.
If you are OK with violations of our constitution and our liberty because the ends justifies the means, you are complicit in the inevitable loss of liberty at the end of this series of assaults on our constitution and liberty. The end does not justify the means.
Shiloh,
The reason Bush II was so unpopular is that he lost the support of a huge chunk of his own party (GOP) who were disappointed that he did not try harder to shrink the size and power of the fed gov.
"every American should be repulsed"
A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent are opposed. It’s particularly noteworthy that pivotal independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age, and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.
>
A similarly strong majority (57 percent) of voters think that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women
Again, if you are not voting for Obama because of this issue, you were not gonna vote for him regardless ...
As the Republican misinformation spin machine has been on full throttle the past (2) days.
36:
Seventy million Catholics have a lot of clout--because that's how democracy works.
The fact that we're religious doesn't lessen our right to influence public policy.
It shouldn't be necessary to explain that.
Amazing how whenever the Catholics seem to prevail on a public policy question--because we're a bunch of folks and we exercised our right--then someone like 36 finds it sinister.
You know, there's a long history of political movements trying to discredit and sideline the Catholic Church as a voice in society. You might want to look it up. There's a whole lot of names on that list no decent would want to be associated with.
"The reason Bush II was so unpopular is that he lost the support of a huge chunk of his own party (GOP)"
Indeed, simple math:
2004 conservatives comprised 34% of the electorate.
2004 Reps comprised 37% of the vote and Bush received 93% of the 37%.
Oct. 2008 Bush's job approval = 25%.
Bush also received 48% in Indys 26% and 11% of Dems 37%.
36:
Just so there's no doubt:
I think NO employer should be forced to act against his or her conscience in providing pay and benefits to his or her employees. The mandate that I think is outrageous against religious groups is outrageous against any employer.
The bishops are making that point--which is a more principled one than, "just don't shoot me!"
Shilho: Too many words in your cut and paste
I'm more impressed with the "Every American should be repulsed" part of your comment.
take care, blessings
"Again, if you are not voting for Obama because of this issue, you were not gonna vote for him regardless"
I don't know how familiar you are with the Catholic church. I am extremely familiar with the Catholic church, though I am agnostic. I went to Catholic schools K through 10, had an aunt who was a cloistered nun (and "visited" her often), had a cousin who was a Trappist monk (and visited him often), have another cousin who studied for the priesthood in Rome. Just recently had the opportunity to closely observe Mexican Americans at Catholic churches and to see the impressive influence their parish priest had on his parishioners.
Catholic priests have a large influence over Catholics who actually attend mass regularly. Obama ramming either birth control or abortion down the throat of Catholic hospitals will intensely motivate the Catholic church to respond. This assault by Obama on the liberty of Catholic hospitals is going to backfire and will leave a mark on Obama's reelection effort. It will also force a lot of Catholic priests to understand that the Catholic church has no future in the dem party.
clittle, then you must be very easily impressed w/SK's words.
Cheers!
Steve Koch
I attended a Catholic grade school and Jesuit high school and can see and raise your personal anecdotes w/opposing opinions. My mom's family having a long history of nuns and priests. My dad was Protestant. I digress.
Full disclosure: I live in the Youngstown diocese which is a lot more liberal ;) than the Cleveland diocese.
Bottom line the Catholic church has much bigger problems than whether the govt. is requiring co-pays re: contraception for Catholic universities and hospitals, etc. many of whom already did so regardless of this new mandate.
shiloh,
Maybe it does have bigger problems. That doesn't change the fact that this one is worth fighting.
Father Martin,
I look at the influence of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as a separation of church and state issue. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion regardless of how big or small the religious group. That’s way it’s a right not subject to the vote of the majority or a large religion like the Catholic Church.
As a religious organization, I believe that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has an excessive amount of influence in our government. If we truly follow the First Amendment they wouldn’t have any influence in the crafting of laws for our secular government.
Regarding you point about no employer should be forced to act against his or her conscience in providing pay and benefits to his or her employees, if a religious organization is going to work in the public sector, employ individuals who do not adhere to the faith and take federal money, they should be prepare to follow any and all federal laws.
If you want to restrict your service only to those of your faith, only hire those who adhere to the faith or freely agree to accept the tenants of the faith while employed in the organization, and eschew federal taxpayer dollars, then I agree an exemption is warranted.
36:
You do love chumming the water!
You say: "If we truly follow the First Amendment they wouldn’t have any influence in the crafting of laws for our secular government."
Not any?
So please explain how the First Amendment denies 180-some American citizens--who also happen to be bishops in the Catholic Church--the ability to speak out, to gather others of like mind, and to petition government for redress of grievances?
Your understanding of the First Amendment means bishops can NOT do these things?
How interesting! Please explain.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“So please explain how the First Amendment denies 180-some American citizens--who also happen to be bishops in the Catholic Church--the ability to speak out, to gather others of like mind, and to petition government for redress of grievances?”
Your understanding of the First Amendment means bishops can NOT do these things?”
Father Martin,
I think when the issue deals with forcing individuals to follow a law based on the religious beliefs of one group, then we are crossing the line of separation of church and state and that is unconstitutional.
I actually believe that religious leaders should be above the fray of government. Jesus Christ did not use the government of His time to craft rules to convince the people to accept His teachings. He ministered directly to the people. Let the bishops do the same.
Father Martin,
Other religious leaders seem to be on board with the new rule:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2012/documents/JointStatementfromFaithGroupsonBCCoverage1.pdf
"We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals’ moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions. We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform - as we value our nation’s commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.”
36:
You didn't answer my question.
You claimed that the First Amendment means Catholic bishops should not have ANY influence on public policy.
Not any--none. Zilch.
Well, that can only mean that they cannot speak, or write anything about public policy.
They can't organize other folks to join in efforts on public policy.
They can't write letters, sign petitions, make phone calls or send emails to Congress...
Because all those things certainly have *some* influence on public policy.
And according to you, the First Amendment means they must have NONE.
So I ask again: please explain how you think the First Amendment forbids those citizens who are ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church from doing these things?
Father Martin,
I did answer your question. If the bishops want to petition the government about proposed taxes, telecommunications policy, proposed transportation projects or whatever, then go for it.
But if the issue deals with crafting legislation that forces individuals to follow a law based on a belief of the Catholic Church, then, in my opinion, we are crossing the line of separation of church and state and that is unconstitutional.
Again, do you believe Jesus Christ, if He was walking the Earth today, would be involved in politics? And if not, why are the bishops involved in politics?
Other religious leaders seem to be on board with the new rule
Please, please, please just stop now. You know that comment about doing your own brain surgery? I was talking about YOU.
Just put down the screwdriver and plyers already.
Stop making yourself look like such a complete idiot by repeatedly demonstrating that you don't know anything that you are talking about.
Catholics For Choice? Really? That is your idea of "other religious leaders"?
Number one -- they are leaders of nothing.
Number two -- it should come as no surprise that there are plenty of anti-Catholic Catholics, plenty of Catholics who hate the Church, just as there were plenty of Jews working for the Nazis at the concentration camps.
If you are getting your loony ideas about the Church from "Catholics For Choice," that may explain why everything you've said is complete gibberish.
Bender said...
“Catholics For Choice? Really? That is your idea of "other religious leaders"?
Why not? How about the Jewish and Muslim representatives? Are you going to dismiss them as well?
How about the Catholics that do agree with the law? Are you going to dismiss their opinions?
do you believe Jesus Christ, if He was walking the Earth today, would be involved in politics?
He would say "Give unto to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
And then He would warn, "Watch out for yourselves. They will hand you over to the courts. You will be beaten in synagogues. You will be arraigned before governors and kings because of me, as a witness before them . . . You will be hated by all because of my name. . . . If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first . . . If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you."
That's what Jesus would say. And then the politicians would seize Him, scourge Him, and crucify Him.
36:
I have no idea what our Lord would have done had he chosen to be born in a country where he would have the constitutional right to vote, speak, petition, etc. And neither do you. So let's set that to the side.
Our Lord's Apostles Peter and Paul both talked about the duties of Christians to be good citizens.
In their time, one had little power regarding the Empire; yet Paul was insistent on the rights he had as a Roman citizen. I suspect he would not have impressed had someone in his time come along, saying, "your Jesus wouldn't claim his rights as a citizen--why are you doing so?"
I take your answer to mean you concede the fact that...
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the First Amendment interferes with bishops influencing public policy in any way...
Since after two requests that you do so, you still haven't cited anything in the First Amendment to support your silly claims.
How about the Catholics that do agree with the law? Are you going to dismiss their opinions?
Yes, because opinion has nothing to do with it. It does not matter if polls showed that 99.99 percent of those who call themselves "Catholic" support it.
Opinion and polls do not determine moral truth, they do not determine right and wrong, they do not determine conscience.
36:
I'll blow your world.
Let's take your fretting to the red zone.
Let us suppose the bishops got just mad enough that they said, "Let's go medieval on those suckers!"
And they launched a campaign for a constitutional amendment that would make the pope the supreme monarch of the United States.
Guess what?
First Amendment says they can.
Feel free to cite chapter and verse to prove me wrong.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“I have no idea what our Lord would have done had he chosen to be born in a country where he would have the constitutional right to vote, speak, petition, etc. And neither do you. So let's set that to the side."
So based on the gospels, you have no idea how Christ would interact with a flawed human institution like government? Interesting.
“Since after two requests that you do so, you still haven't cited anything in the First Amendment to support your silly claims.”
I don’t know what more you would need than the First Amendment. Contraception and abortion are legal in this country. Why is the Catholic Church attempting to impose it’s beliefs on all the people of the nation by trying to get the laws governing those services rescinded?
I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the good Father.
The First Amendment is irrelevant as well. If the First Amendment was never written, then the Church would still have religious freedom and primacy of conscience. If the United States never existed, the Church would still have religious freedom and primacy of conscience.
Our freedom does not come from a piece of paper, it is not dependent upon constitutions or courts (we see how well they protect the right to life of innocent babies, don't we?). Our freedom comes from God, not Rome. Period.
And Paul and Peter and all the other Apostles and the entire early Church did not hesitate to reject the authority of the government and to refuse to comply with unjust laws. An unjust law is no law at all. That is why they were arrested, that is why they were imprisoned, that is why they were killed. We are not called to be a martyr (from the Greek for "witness") for national citizenship, we are called to be a witness for Christ and, if necessary, be a martyr (who endures persecution even unto death).
The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
Bender said...
"Opinion and polls do not determine moral truth, they do not determine right and wrong, they do not determine conscience."
And if one does not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Fr Martin Fox said...
“I'll blow your world.
Let's take your fretting to the red zone.
Let us suppose the bishops got just mad enough that they said, "Let's go medieval on those suckers!"
And they launched a campaign for a constitutional amendment that would make the pope the supreme monarch of the United States.
Guess what?
First Amendment says they can.
Feel free to cite chapter and verse to prove me wrong.”
Father,
What part of separation of church and state is confusing? What you propose above is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong and go for it.
Bender said...
"The First Amendment is irrelevant as well. If the First Amendment was never written, then the Church would still have religious freedom and primacy of conscience. If the United States never existed, the Church would still have religious freedom and primacy of conscience."
That presupposes you believe in the Church.
36:
You know, I'm having a hard time keeping my good humor with you.
You say:
So based on the gospels, you have no idea how Christ would interact with a flawed human institution like government? Interesting.
No.
I wrote a perfectly comprehensible paragraph on that which says something very different. I'm going to ascribe your seemingly willful misrepresentation to your reading comprehension suddenly collapsing.
So I try using small words.
And short sentences.
Your question.
Assumed Jesus alive today.
In OUR situation.
Today. Now.
But Jesus walk on earth 2,000 years ago.
How anyone know what Jesus do--today?
You no know that.
I no know that.
Only Jesus know that.
So ask Jesus. Not me. I not Jesus.
Get it?
I don't care if you believe in the Church or not. The Church exists nonetheless.
And I don't care if you believe in freedom or not. Freedom exists nonetheless.
Those in the Church have been endowed by their Creator with certain fundamental and inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the rights of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
Your believe in the Church is not required. All that is required is that you leave the Church alone, and the Church will leave you alone.
36:
1. "Separation of Church and state" is not a part of the Constitution.
Go look it up. We'll wait.
2. A constitutional amendment making the pope the king of America is not unconstitutional. Improbable to a vanishing degree? Certainly.
But the Constitution can be amended. Nothing in the Constitution prevents crazy amendments from being added, provided they be ratified in the proper way.
3. Nothing in the Constitution prevents any citizen from advocating crazy ideas like making the pope king.
4. So, no it's not "unconstitutional."
Crazy? Sure. But the point was, the Constitution doesn't bar it.
You might want to read the Constitution before you say what's in it.
It is not unconstitutional for any group to launch a campaign for a constitutional amendment. If the amendment passed 3/4 of the states, it would then be part of the constitution and therefore constitutional.
We have the freedoms to launch any campaigns we wish to.
If a constitutional amendment should later be determined, by the people, to be error, another constitutional amendment can be ratified to repeal the first. See Amendment 18 and Amendment 21.
Bender said...
"All that is required is that you leave the Church alone, and the Church will leave you alone."
Bingo! Thank you for making my point.
Bender:
Nah, we're not leaving 36 alone.
He crossed the line.
I called the 24-hour Opus Dei hotline.
They'll be sending out the monk-assasins shortly.
Say your prayers 36--if you're still there.
Fr Martin Fox said...
“1. "Separation of Church and state" is not a part of the Constitution.”
It is a phrase used by Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist congregation in 1801 describing what the Establishment and Free Exercises Clauses were designed to do. You can research that if you like. I don’t mind using old Tom’s phrase since he was a Founding Father.
“2. A constitutional amendment making the pope the king of America is not unconstitutional. Improbable to a vanishing degree? Certainly.
But the Constitution can be amended. Nothing in the Constitution prevents crazy amendments from being added, provided they be ratified in the proper way.”
If you think such an amendment will make it, go for it. I’m more concerned about a religious group imposing its beliefs on my life. What if instead of a Catholic Church belief we were referring to some Islamic belief in this discussion? How would you feel about that Father?
“3. Nothing in the Constitution prevents any citizen from advocating crazy ideas like making the pope king.”
“4. So, no it's not "unconstitutional."
Maybe not, but I don’t believe such an idea will get too far. And really, is this what the Church wants to waste its time on?
Fr Martin Fox said...
"They'll be sending out the monk-assasins shortly.
Say your prayers 36--if you're still there."
Father Martin,
You are a Catholic priest, correct? Assassination? Is that somewhere in the teachings of Christ?
36:
I guess you have a reading difficulty. I've made my points pretty plain. You just can't grasp them.
I'm retiring from the discussion.
Again, I suggest you get your affairs in order, those Opus Dei monks could be there any moment.
"I called the 24-hour Opus Dei hotline."
Fr Martin Fox, don't you have divine intervention?
When I was back there in seminary school
There was a person there
Who put forth the proposition
That you can petition the Lord with prayer
Petition the lord with prayer
Petition the lord with prayer
You cannot petition the lord with prayer!
Fr Martin Fox said...
“I guess you have a reading difficulty. I've made my points pretty plain. You just can't grasp them.”
Well, like Bender stated, if the Church would stick to its affairs, I’ll stick to my affairs.
“I'm retiring from the discussion.”
Have a good evening Father.
“Again, I suggest you get your affairs in order, those Opus Dei monks could be there any moment.”
I’ll keep a sharp eye out for them!
Shiloh,
Bottom Line:
Catholic church and many Catholic hospitals, many Catholic dems, and (of course) GOP make a big issue of this and keep up the pressure until Obama backs down.
I hope that Obama agrees with you, thinks this is no big deal and sticks to his guns. The longer it takes Obama to correct this unforced error, the better it is for the GOP.
36
How is the Catholic Church not wanting to be forced to pay for contraception in any way forcing you to accept their beliefs?
Non Catholic employees aren't prevented from buying or using contraceptives. Access is there. The Government had no business forcing any employer to provide such coverage at all, let alone free of charge to the employee.
As I mentioned above, if they want to force the Church (and it's not just the Catholic Church being forced into this, it's all religious and secular employers) to provide pay for contraception for their employees maybe the administration should just tell Planned Parenthood to provide all reproductive services absolutely free of charge. Just walk in and get what you want: the pill, Plan B, condoms, IUDs, diaphragms, etc. If it's supposed to be free and all.
And why only contraceptives covered free? Why not include fertility treatments, all pre-natal visits, all tests, all ultrasounds, childbirth and well-child visits and vaccinations? Why only products and services that prevent pregnancy and birth?
SK, as mentioned this will be totally forgotten in (2) mos.
But feel free to keep hope alive as Reps continually try to grasp at insignificant straws ...
If Obama could survive Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, this ain't nothing but a thing.
Stay tuned!
wv: catheocy :D
kimsch said...
“How is the Catholic Church not wanting to be forced to pay for contraception in any way forcing you to accept their beliefs?
Non Catholic employees aren't prevented from buying or using contraceptives. Access is there. The Government had no business forcing any employer to provide such coverage at all, let alone free of charge to the employee.
As I mentioned above, if they want to force the Church (and it's not just the Catholic Church being forced into this, it's all religious and secular employers) to provide pay for contraception for their employees maybe the administration should just tell Planned Parenthood to provide all reproductive services absolutely free of charge. Just walk in and get what you want: the pill, Plan B, condoms, IUDs, diaphragms, etc. If it's supposed to be free and all.
And why only contraceptives covered free? Why not include fertility treatments, all pre-natal visits, all tests, all ultrasounds, childbirth and well-child visits and vaccinations? Why only products and services that prevent pregnancy and birth?”
kimsch,
As I stated up thread, I believe if any religious organization is going to work in the public sector, employ individuals who do not adhere to the faith and take federal money, they should be prepare to follow any and all federal laws.
If a religious organization wants to restrict its service only to those of the faith, only hire those who adhere to the faith or freely agree to accept the tenants of the faith while employed in the organization, and eschew federal taxpayer dollars, then I agree an exemption is warranted.
This issue has been around for a while. Twenty-eight states already have similar laws on the books. I don’t agree with the position being promulgated by religious leaders and politicians that this issue is some kind of “war on religion”. I believe there is a larger agenda in play, i.e., the complete repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Some are making it a political football for that purpose and I don’t believe religious leaders should be that disingenuous. They should be above the fray of government.
Interesting article in NRO by the brilliant Andy McCarthy entitled:
"When Obama Voted For Infanticide"
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy
Read the article but the topic is about how Obama voted not to protect the children who, despite the best efforts to abort them, were born live. The abortion "doctors", being full service baby killers, made sure the babies ended up dead (i.e. committed infanticide). Obama was OK with this infanticide and voted against protected these poor babies that somehow survived the attempt to abort them.
I wonder how much support there is for infanticide in the USA.
Shiloh,
Maybe not. There are already 6 dem US senators who have called on Obama to back off on this issue and the controversy is still young. It is a great issue for the GOP and Obama made a big mistake in giving the GOP this opportunity, especially before the election.
SK, being that the Rep party is totally discombobulated at this time and Obama is very empathetic to their deleterious ;) situation ~ it's only natural that he'd try to help a brother(s) recover from their deep depression ...
Thank you for being a friend! :)
shiloh said...
Were you shouting from the mountain tops during the (8) years of cheney/bush when your personal liberties were eroded every which way to Sunday!
Hysterical.
Then you go on to post such riveting and factual information such as: "Target Key Individuals"
Quite clearly you're not capable of being embarrassed.
36. Just a head's up on the contraception bit. I do believe this is not in the law passed by congress and signed by the people. I think this is one of those pesky attributes of Obamacare that are being made up as we go along. Check it out.
Michael said...
“36. Just a head's up on the contraception bit. I do believe this is not in the law passed by congress and signed by the people. I think this is one of those pesky attributes of Obamacare that are being made up as we go along. Check it out.”
Michael,
According to the article at the link below, the expanded access to contraceptives is based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine that fill important gaps in three existing sets of services that are already covered without cost-sharing under a provision of the 2010 health reform legislation.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/08/01/index.html
I haven’t read anything stating Obama is acting outside the provisions of the law. The issue is about granting religious organizations an exemption to the rule of the law requiring employers to cover contraceptive services as discussed at this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/Kathleen-Sebelius-contraception-exemption/52975092/1
See, we have religious FREEDOM, not religious subsidy...oh wait we do have that. Perhaps the papists should leave the the 3 billion they get on the table if this is oh so offensive. This is a LOSING battle for those of you who are not women. See Komen, Susan G.
Oh and Steve Koch, the Catholic church is solidly lined up with Evagelicals....totally Republican. That news is about 25 years old.
Michael said...
do believe this is not in the law passed by congress and signed by the people. I think this is one of those pesky attributes of Obamacare that are being made up as we go along. Check it out.
Very true and being lost in the discussion. It is not as 36 would have it in and of itself a mandate imposed by law.
This is a prime example of a mandate that Obamacare's language allows a government agency to impose. And that is the core issue here (and why intelligent people are concerned about matters like death panels). Obamacare allows government agencies to interpret, restrict, and mandate how something of fundamental importance to any person, health care, is applied in a society of free citizens.
The Church is being bit by one of the first applications of this. The bishops are not stupid men and take a long view. They see the government mandate coming down the road that Catholic hospitals provide abortion and assisted suicide services. So it is not only a moral imperative that they must stand their ground now on just this issue, as important as it is. They can't compromise by excepting an exemption. This is not going to go away unless Obama caves in on the mandate entirely and for the clearly stated reason that is it wrong, not just hand out exemptions.
He can't and won't do that. He has to ride the tiger he mounted. The only thing that will save him is if the SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare. He had to be yearning for them to save his bacon over Obamacare long before this latest issue.
Palin.
Hitler.
See Komen, Susan G.
Hysterical.
Yes, because it was Catholics (and Republicans of course!) that told the Komen folks to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood (which does not do any mamograms, but like you're for mamograms) and Komen listed!
Idiot.
36fsfiend said...
You've spent about 50 posts here referencing the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law.
Then you made a post about religious organizations receiving exemptions to the law, which was in the law.
Can you get a coherent message?
believe if any religious organization is going to work in the public sector,
What in the world is that supposed to mean?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा