IGX

.....in an ironic twist of fate.

Cardinal-Designate Dolan: President Obama Needs To Stop ‘Intruding Into Internal Life Of A Church’

Ironic coming from the the same people that where A OK with intruding into my internal life, via government force, to support their illegal alien pets & fund their socialist projects.

That is, until the lidless eye socialism focused on their dumb asses.

Now it's constitution this and constitution that. After years of helping the democratic party and others, but mostly the democratic party, wipe their asses with the US Constitution; they have found their inner Thomas Jefferson. Socialism for thee, but not for me; or so they thought.

Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe these people's actions.

Catholic priests should stop internally intruding on altar boys. Turnabout is fair play.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Now it's constitution this and constitution that. After years of helping the democratic party and others, but mostly the democratic party, wipe their asses with the US Constitution; they have found their inner Thomas Jefferson. Socialism for thee, but not for me; or so they thought.

Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe these people's actions.

Well put.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Now it's constitution this and constitution that. After years of helping the democratic party and others, but mostly the democratic party,

U.S. bishops have supported denying Communion to pro-choice politicians, all of them Democrats. I can't think of an equivalent action against conservatives.

That said, it's been kooky-talk claiming this contraception thing has anything to do with religious liberty. It doesn't.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Now it's constitution this and constitution that. After years of helping the democratic party and others, but mostly the democratic party,

U.S. bishops have supported denying Communion to pro-choice politicians, all of them Democrats. I can't think of an equivalent action against conservatives.

That said, it's been kooky-talk claiming this contraception thing has anything to do with religious liberty. It doesn't.

Either that or they have a much stronger understanding of how insurance works than you do.

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Now it's constitution this and constitution that. After years of helping the democratic party and others, but mostly the democratic party,

U.S. bishops have supported denying Communion to pro-choice politicians, all of them Democrats. I can't think of an equivalent action against conservatives.

That said, it's been kooky-talk claiming this contraception thing has anything to do with religious liberty. It doesn't.

Either that or they have a much stronger understanding of how insurance works than you do.

Why not present a logical argument supporting the bishops' position, instead of just suggesting I don't understand the issue?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Now it's constitution this and constitution that. After years of helping the democratic party and others, but mostly the democratic party,

U.S. bishops have supported denying Communion to pro-choice politicians, all of them Democrats. I can't think of an equivalent action against conservatives.

That said, it's been kooky-talk claiming this contraception thing has anything to do with religious liberty. It doesn't.

Either that or they have a much stronger understanding of how insurance works than you do.

Why not present a logical argument supporting the bishops' position, instead of just suggesting I don't understand the issue?

Under the new HHS decisions-- Catholic institutions larger than a small single parish that currently provide medical insurance to their employees will be to add sterilization and contraceptive coverage (among other things) to the insurance policies they provide for their employees.

And you should be familiar enough with Catholic teaching to know what the Church's position on these issues are.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Now it's constitution this and constitution that. After years of helping the democratic party and others, but mostly the democratic party,

U.S. bishops have supported denying Communion to pro-choice politicians, all of them Democrats. I can't think of an equivalent action against conservatives.

That said, it's been kooky-talk claiming this contraception thing has anything to do with religious liberty. It doesn't.

Either that or they have a much stronger understanding of how insurance works than you do.

Why not present a logical argument supporting the bishops' position, instead of just suggesting I don't understand the issue?

How about the simple fact that universal birth control and sterilization are not rights and nobody should be forced to provide them for free, religious or not.

Hell if free birth control provided by my employer is a right, so should laser eye surgery. I paid out of my pocket for that.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to get BC - you do. But for free? Geez everyone wants something for free.

Freedom defined by the Obama-ites is you deserve everything you want for free. Free is defined as others pay for your stuff.

Freedom defined by the Constitution means ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

Nothing incidently about the seperation of church and state. It is all about the State staying out of establishing a state Church and the Church exercising their beliefs freely.

BTW..can't you get all the birth control, abortion pills and abortions you want at Planned Parenthood? Wasn't that the point last week?

This is a REALLY stupid move by the President. Pissing off Catholics isn't helping him.

http://sacredheartwinnetka.com/wp-conte ... Letter.pdf

This letter, or something equivalent from the local bishop, should have been read and explained at every mass in the Chicago archdioceses either last Sunday or the Sunday before.

Multiplication of "rights" necessarily leads to greater gov't intrusion in our lives (a fact that is missed by many lefties who claim to be pro-freedom).

Now that there's a right to health care, the race is on by special interest groups to expand the definition of health care to cover their pet cause. Abortionists, chiropractors, mental health professionals, acupuncturists, Feng Shui consultants, aromatherapists...all will lobby to make you healthy via the gov't teat & fist.

Coming soon: a proposal for gov't support for Crossfit boxes that are so necessary to keep Americans healthy & to reduce health care costs caused by obesity. Followed by Crossfit school PE mandate....

Under the new HHS decisions-- Catholic institutions larger than a small single parish that currently provide medical insurance to their employees will be to add sterilization and contraceptive coverage (among other things) to the insurance policies they provide for their employees.

This is already standard in several states, without objection.

And you should be familiar enough with Catholic teaching to know what the Church's position on these issues are.

I do. Catholics aren't supposed to use contraceptives. A federal ruling requiring the use of contraceptives would definitely be a violation of religious liberty.

But this doesn't do that. Nobody is being required by the government to take contraceptives. In this case, the bishops are claiming "religious liberty" means "We have the right to impose our beliefs on others." These places employ non-Catholics, and most practicing Catholics don't follow the tenets on contraception. The individual citizen chooses his own religious beliefs. People choose to sin or not to, every day, and the bishops definitely don't want to get into the economic incentives discussion when it comes to eliminating birth control.

As somebody who would like to see the Church move past some of its recent baggage, it's unbelievable to me that they're deciding to pick sexual morality in general and contraception in particular as a battlefield.

IMO the big issue here is a larger one for religious folks-- what are the acceptable exemptions under Obamacare?

They weren't defined in the bill, and are largely up to executive branch discretion. Given: how many Catholic hospitals there are in the US; how many religious Catholics are medical professionals; the size of Catholic charities; and the number of Catholic institutions that provide insurance coverage to their employees; and the number of religious Catholics who own businesses that provide insurance coverage for their employees-- this is a big and important question. Add in the Protestants and Protestant institutions, the question gets much bigger.

Even on an Obamacare level this is a big question-- what is the standard for insurance that businesses should provide for their employees? I know people with annual insurance deductibles of $7500-- in these cases the deductible is 20-40% of their gross incomes.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Under the new HHS decisions-- Catholic institutions larger than a small single parish that currently provide medical insurance to their employees will be to add sterilization and contraceptive coverage (among other things) to the insurance policies they provide for their employees.

This is already standard in several states, without objection.

And you should be familiar enough with Catholic teaching to know what the Church's position on these issues are.

I do. Catholics aren't supposed to use contraceptives. A federal ruling requiring the use of contraceptives would definitely be a violation of religious liberty.

But this doesn't do that. Nobody is being required by the government to take contraceptives. In this case, the bishops are claiming "religious liberty" means "We have the right to impose our beliefs on others." These places employ non-Catholics, and most practicing Catholics don't follow the tenets on contraception. The individual citizen chooses his own religious beliefs. People choose to sin or not to, every day, and the bishops definitely don't want to get into the economic incentives discussion when it comes to eliminating birth control.

As somebody who would like to see the Church move past some of its recent baggage, it's unbelievable to me that they're deciding to pick sexual morality in general and contraception in particular as a battlefield.

You're still not getting it. The HHS ruling requires the Church to pay for contraceptive and sterilization services for their employees through the insurance coverage they provide. They're not imposing their beliefs on others, they are refusing to directly pay for services that are contrary to their beliefs.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:The individual citizen chooses his own religious beliefs. People choose to sin or not to, every day,

Great, so they should pay for it themselves.





I for one with my receeding hairline hope that Obamacare will provide access to my Constitutional right to free hair transplants.

Turdacious wrote:You're still not getting it. The HHS ruling requires the Church to pay for contraceptive and sterilization services for their employees through the insurance coverage they provide. They're not imposing their beliefs on others, they are refusing to directly pay for services that are contrary to their beliefs.

I get it. An employer is declining to pay for insurance that covers services that its employees use almost universally. The employer objects to these services on religious grounds, and their employees don't share those beliefs.

Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

The practical effect, of course, is that eliminating the insurance means that employees who can afford it will buy it anyway, and employees who can't afford will have more unwanted pregnancies. Let's increase family sizes and/or abortions among poor people. Smart.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:You're still not getting it. The HHS ruling requires the Church to pay for contraceptive and sterilization services for their employees through the insurance coverage they provide. They're not imposing their beliefs on others, they are refusing to directly pay for services that are contrary to their beliefs.

I get it. An employer is declining to pay for insurance that covers services that its employees use almost universally. The employer objects to these services on religious grounds, and their employees don't share those beliefs.

Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

The practical effect, of course, is that eliminating the insurance means that employees who can afford it will buy it anyway, and employees who can't afford will have more unwanted pregnancies. Let's increase family sizes and/or abortions among poor people. Smart.

I don't think smart is the issue, when and where gov't can limit "the free exercise thereof" via coercion is the issue. The gov't has already done this with those who view peyote as a sacrament and those who want to deny their children essential medical care to rely on faith exclusively for healing.

Forcing a major religion to specifically and directly pay for something that directly contradicts their faith in such a blatant manner has never been done to this degree by the federal gov't before. Obama is intent on forcing the Roman Catholic church to pre-pay insurance companies for abortions via the morning after pill. This absolutely astounds me.

Whether you agree or disagree with Obama, it's clear that he's intent on using federal coercion to subvert a long established religious conviction by one of the world's major religions to a dramatically new degree. This enhanced federal power grab is dangerous and disturbing.

Most Roman Catholic priests are homosexuals or pedophiles. Or homosexual pedophiles.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Forcing a major religion to specifically and directly pay for something that directly contradicts their faith in such a blatant manner has never been done to this degree by the federal gov't before.

This would be a stronger argument if any part of it were true.

All this complaining about health care when all you really need is prayer to heal.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Forcing a major religion to specifically and directly pay for something that directly contradicts their faith in such a blatant manner has never been done to this degree by the federal gov't before.

This would be a stronger argument if any part of it were true.

My being wrong is unthinkable. Do you have examples?

If there are examples of the feds forcing a major religion to directly pay something that contradicts their faith, does that justify this new and fresh Obama incursion?

Fat Cat wrote:Most Roman Catholic priests are homosexuals or pedophiles. Or homosexual pedophiles.

Get back on your stick monkey.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:You're still not getting it. The HHS ruling requires the Church to pay for contraceptive and sterilization services for their employees through the insurance coverage they provide. They're not imposing their beliefs on others, they are refusing to directly pay for services that are contrary to their beliefs.

I get it. An employer is declining to pay for insurance that covers services that its employees use almost universally. The employer objects to these services on religious grounds, and their employees don't share those beliefs.

Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

The practical effect, of course, is that eliminating the insurance means that employees who can afford it will buy it anyway, and employees who can't afford will have more unwanted pregnancies. Let's increase family sizes and/or abortions among poor people. Smart.

Can you please restate this without all the feminist claptrap?

The Catholic Church can't eliminate the the insurance anyway-- Obama promised 'you'll get to keep your insurance policy.'

DT wrote:Can you please restate this without all the feminist claptrap?

I realize the 3rd paragraph gave people a chance to ignore the actual issue. Try sticking with the first two.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Forcing a major religion to specifically and directly pay for something that directly contradicts their faith in such a blatant manner has never been done to this degree by the federal gov't before.

This would be a stronger argument if any part of it were true.

My being wrong is unthinkable. Do you have examples?

If there are examples of the feds forcing a major religion to directly pay something that contradicts their faith, does that justify this new and fresh Obama incursion?

Donk, they aren't forcing a "religion" to do anything. You can't make a faith do something. Further, nobody is directly paying for something that contradicts their faith, unless they are against insurance. You make it sound like the Vatican is cutting checks for abortions. Catholic hospitals or other employers would have to pay the same insurance everybody else has to pay for. In doing so, they are indirectly paying for contraception. They also indirectly pay for contraception when they pay salaries.

Spells, you're being obtuse. There is a difference between:
paying for birth control through an insurance policy
paying your employees a salary that they can choose to buy birth control with

And you're mistaken if you think the major issue is birth control-- abortifacients are much bigger