ADVERTISEMENT

Obama is anti-Christian

Old_alum

All World
Nov 22, 2006
14,809
3,188
113
The following is from the Bishop's letter (link below):



QUOTE




HHS Edict Will Force Catholics to Violate Conscience
By Bishop David A. Zubik, Diocese of Pittsburgh



It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To Hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.



In early August, the Department for Health and Human Services in the Obama administration released guidelines as part of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The guidelines mandated that by Summer 2012 all individual and group health insurance plans, including self-insured plans, cover all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization procedures and pharmaceuticals that even result in abortion.



A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease; mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to chose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.



Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.



This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone --- not only Catholics; not only people of all religion. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens. It forces every employer to subsidize an ideology or pay a penalty while searching for alternatives to health care coverage. It undermines the whole concept and hope for health care reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats.



For our Church this mandate would apply in virtually every instance where the Catholic Church serves as an employer. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity by forcing Catholic entities to provide contraceptive, sterilization coverage and even pharmaceuticals that result in abortion.



There was a so-called “religious exemption” to the mandate, but it was so narrowly drawn that, as critics charged, Jesus Christ and his Apostles would not fit the exemption. The so-called exemption would only apply to the vast array of Catholic institutions where the following applied:



---Only Catholics are employed;

---The primary purpose of the institution or service provided is the direct instruction in Catholic belief;

---The only persons served by the institution are those that share Catholic religious tenets. (Try to fit this in with our local Catholic Charities that serve 80,000 every year without discrimination according to faith. It would be impossible!)


Practically speaking under the proposed mandate there would be no “religious exemption” for Catholic hospitals universities, colleges, nursing homes and numerous Catholic social service agencies such as Catholic Charities. It could easily be determined that the “religious exemption” would not apply as well to Catholic high schools, elementary schools and Catholic parishes since many employ non-Catholics and serve both students and, through social outreach, many who do not share Catholic religious beliefs. Such a narrow “religious exemption” is simply unprecedented in federal law.




Last September I asked you to protest those guidelines to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services, and contact your political leadership in the federal government. I asked that you request that this flawed mandate be withdrawn because of its unprecedented interference in the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of the Catholic community, and our basic democratic process.



You did. And you were joined by Catholics throughout the country (and many others as well) who raised their voices against the mandate, raised their voices against a meaningless religious exemption.

On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration answered you and me. The response was very simple: “To Hell with You.”



Kathleen Sebelius announced that the mandate would not be withdrawn and the religious exemption would not be expanded. Instead, she stated that nonprofit groups --- which include the Catholic Church --- will get a year “to adapt to this new rule.” She simply dismissed Catholic concerns as standing in the way of allegedly respecting the health concerns and choices of women.



Could Catholics be insulted any more, suggesting that we have no concern for women’s health issues? The Catholic Church and the Catholic people have erected health care facilities that are recognized worldwide for their compassionate care for everyone regardless of their creed, their economic circumstances and, most certainly, their gender. In so many parts of the globe --- the United States included --- the Church is health care.



Kathleen Sebelius and through her, the Obama administration, have said “To Hell with You” to the Catholic faithful of the United States.



---To Hell with your religious beliefs,

---To Hell with your religious liberty,

---To Hell with your freedom of conscience.

We’ll give you a year, they are saying, and then you have to knuckle under. As Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded, “in effect, the president is saying that we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”



As I wrote to you last September, with this mandate the democratic process is being ignored while we are being ordered to ignore our religious beliefs. And we are being told not only to violate our beliefs, but to pay directly for that violation; to subsidize the imposition of a contraceptive and abortion culture on every person in the United States.

UNQUOTE

Truly sad.

This post was edited on 2/3 9:05 AM by Old_alum

Bishop's letter
 
If you don't like birth control, don't take birth control.
For a variety of reasons it is medically beneficial for women to use it.

Catholics should feel free to teach their religion, but also understand that they may employ people with different religious beliefs.

Why is that so hard to understand?

A woman who is going to take birth control, is going to take birth control. All they are trying to do is make it more expensive. Good plan Bishop.

I am a person of faith, but I really don't like religion sometimes.
 
If there's any question as to where I stand on this issue, I'll gladly expound upon it for anyone. Otherwise, without getting into the moral debate, I'll just say that the violation of rights of conscience is an absolute disgrace, and anyone who values freedom, no matter how "progressive" you say you are, or what side of the pro-life/pro-choice argument you're on, should be VERY AFRAID of this kind of legislation. It's basically a government mandated gag order. I hope the Catholic hospitals violate this Nazi code at every opportunity. Why isn't the ACLU rushing to the aid of these health care workers/institutions?
 
Originally posted by Merge:
If you don't like birth control, don't take birth control.
For a variety of reasons it is medically beneficial for women to use it.

Catholics should feel free to teach their religion, but also understand that they may employ people with different religious beliefs.

Why is that so hard to understand?

A woman who is going to take birth control, is going to take birth control. All they are trying to do is make it more expensive. Good plan Bishop.

I am a person of faith, but I really don't like religion sometimes.

Are you joking? How does any of what you read drive the cost of contraception? The generics are dirt cheap, and available anywhere. Seriously, you have more intelligence than that.


And how hard is it to understand that you don't get abortions at Catholic hospitals? The government is crossing a very dangerous line here. If you don't see that, you're a liberal apologist.
This post was edited on 2/3 10:15 AM by donnie_baseball
 
"How does any of what you read drive the cost of contraception?"

It doesn't. Again, what I said was that if a woman is going to use contraception... she is going to use it regardless of health coverage. It will cost her more without coverage. I don't think I was going out on a limb there.

That is ALL the church is trying to avoid. Nothing more.

"And how hard is it to understand that you don't get abortions at Catholic hospitals?"

Not sure why you think that is similar. No one is forcing the church to provide contraception, just insurance coverage for the people who they employ that may not believe with the church's view regarding contraception.

"The government is crossing a very dangerous line here."

No they aren't.

There are other medical reasons for using birth control for some women, and the church is completely ignoring that fact.
 
No, you're missing the whole point. This is about forcing Catholic or other religious-run hospitals, and their providers, to provide services, including abortion, that they object to on grounds of conscience. If you don't find that dangerous, you are either a blind shill for liberals, or don't value freedom.



I work for a Catholic health system, and contraceptive pills are covered under the health plan, especially if they are for "other than contraceptive" uses, as you mentioned.
This post was edited on 2/3 11:31 AM by donnie_baseball
 
Just another government plan telling folks what to do and taking away individual freedoms.

It's unfortunate but it's just not cool to be religious anymore because the government and the libs say so. Sad really...
 
Originally posted by Merge:
There are other medical reasons for using birth control for some women, and the church is completely ignoring that fact.

That's a flat out lie. You think you know about the Church, but clearly you don't. The medical uses of hormones in OCP's are well known; students at Catholic Universities can get birth control, as long as the diagnosis relates to a medical condition. Your argument is as silly as the one that states we need abortions available for saving the lives of the mom, which make up less than 1% of the cases, and has always been legal. True straw man arguments at their finest. PS - the Church recognizes evolution, too. What else ya got, Chris Matthews?
This post was edited on 2/3 11:44 AM by donnie_baseball
 
If there was a law taking away freedoms of the press people would be going crazy.

And we should not forget this country was founded by people seeking freedom of religion.
 
I believe a law which says insurance must cover contraception should apply to all employers who provide health coverage. I don't think Catholics should force their religious beliefs on their employees health plan. No straw man there.

It is not like this would change the use of contraception... so what exactly is the church trying to do here? What do they gain?
 
Why is this different than someone getting a personal insurance policy and not having coverage for pregnancy? It's really not. It's just another government mandate taking away choice. You are lib, you like choice right?
 
Originally posted by Section112:
Why is this different than someone getting a personal insurance policy and not having coverage for pregnancy? It's really not. It's just another government mandate taking away choice. You are lib, you like choice right?

I don't mind if a person chooses not to get that coverage if they choose not to. I do mind them not having the ability to say they do want it because they are employed by a Catholic University or organization even though they do not share the same beliefs as their employer.
 
they also have a choice: they don't have to work for that employer I've noticed that you are conveniently glossing over the issue at hand here, merge: objections of conscience. if you even read the bishops letter, I don't know how you came up with birth control pills, which, by the way, are cheap as dirt covered or uncovered .
 
Why are you using the words catholic and christian interchangably. They are not always the same. To say that the President is either is anti-catholic or anti-christian is just not true.
 
Upon reading a letter in my own Diocese just now and rereading the Pittsburgh letter I must correct myself for not being more careful and I should always be less adamant.



Merge is right that a primary thrust of the new legislation is aimed at the health-insurance offered and subsidized by all Catholic employers. I said health insurance was not impacted. I was wrong and I apologize to Merge and all other posters.



Hereafter is my original, incomplete and partially inaccurate post.
END of Edit.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -



There are two issues here.

The first is that the government is mandating that any religious institution which serves or hires anyone of a religion not their own may not object to being forced to perform and provide things that are against their conscience. This is a pure and simple violation of Constitutional rights, and IMHO when tested will be declared so.



The second is the use of government funds to provide drugs with no medical purpose other than the prevention or termination of conception.



It has nothing to do with the cost of drugs. It has nothing to do with the private health insurance coverage options of any individual.



What would people say if the Federal government were to mandate that no television station could maintain a license held since the inception of the FCC UNLESS it broadcast only such programmng that is rated ''G'': acceptible in entirety for children under 12?





While to my knowledge no church other than the Catholic Church opposes artificial birth control, I would say that most evangelical churches stridently oppose abortion in any of its forms. I believe that to date the Federal legislature has carefully avoided the provision of Federal tax dollars to be used for abortions in any of its forms because it is morally repugnant to at least half (surveys show a significant majority) of the population.



In this regard, no one is demanding that anyone outside those churches with moral objections to abortions be denied anything.



Christian groups in general and the Catholic Church in particular truly pioneered health care for the masses centuries before ANY government spent a penny on it. In the US one in six are treated at Catholic hospitals. In today's environment government programs (and money) are necessary for almost any health provider to survive financially. Until now the Federal government has provided all hospitals funding WITHOUT demanding any perfom morally repugnant services.



One might argue that the Federal government may place any restrictions it chooses on any money it gives. Perhaps. But these restrictions mandating morally objectionable actions might close down one-sixth of the health care facilities in the US.



This post was edited on 2/4 6:21 PM by Old_alum
 
Upon reading a letter in my own Diocese just now and rereading the Pittsburgh letter I must correct myself for not being more careful and I should always be less adamant.



Merge is right that a primary thrust of the new legislation is aimed at the health-insurance offered and subsidized by all Catholic employers. I said health insurance was not impacted. I was wrong and I apologize to Merge and all other posters.



Hereafter is my original, incomplete and partially inaccurate post.
END of Edit.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -




First, IMHO nothing in Merge's post is cogent to the OP. That said, I would like to address each of his points.


Originally posted by Merge:
For a variety of reasons it is medically beneficial for women to use (birth control).

It is my understanding that there are NO medical benefits to birth control and there is significant literature that indicates very serious health problems associated with birth control. Please cite what I am missing.

That said, some might argue that the ''medical'' risks of pregnancy are serious. No doubt pregnancy has some risks but the human race handled these risks reasonably for at least 8,000 years.

Is it not true that birth control is strictly a social or life-style choice?

Originally posted by Merge:
Catholics should feel free to teach their religion, but also understand that they may employ people with different religious beliefs.

I am not sure what in the OP this is even attempting to address, but the Catholic health system will not be free to ''employ'' ANY people at all if it is forced to shut down for moral reasons.



Originally posted by Merge:
A woman who is going to take birth control, is going to take birth control. All they are trying to do is make it more expensive. Good plan Bishop.

Please explain how the Obama regs and my objection to them has ANYTHING to do with the expense of birth control.



Originally posted by Merge:
I am a person of faith, but I really don't like religion sometimes.

Two points here:

1. Since you have ''faith'' are there any beliefs you have under that ''faith'' that you would want the government to prohibit in such a way that it would make you unemployable?

2. Why would anyone categorically disparage ''religion'' in toto based on the statements or actions of any individual, even if it were the Pope or the Dalai Lama, himself?

Logic 101 proscibes anyone from jumping from the specific to the universal.

Just wondering.

This post was edited on 2/4 6:22 PM by Old_alum
 
Old, don't expect an answer. You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed foe. Sadly, and short of battle, respectful discourse is dead. He took what you posted, twisted it off topic, in order to bring whatever his agenda is to the forefront. In defense of one of his "points," oral contraceptives are used for some medical conditions, including dysmenorrhea, acne, and poly cystic ovarian syndrome, to name a few. In these cases, Catholic Universities and hospitals have been known to make exceptions and prescribe such medications.

In the same sense, methotrexate is both a cancer drug and abortifacients. The Church has no objection, obviously, to use of the drug in the former case.
 
Originally posted by Old_alum:
It is my understanding that there are NO medical benefits to birth control and there is significant literature that indicates very serious health problems associated with birth control. Please cite what I am missing.

I actually only knew of this because of two ex-girlfriends.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

Originally posted by Old_alum:
Is it not true that birth control is strictly a social or life-style choice?

In most cases, most likely.

Originally posted by Old_alum:
I am not sure what in the OP this is even attempting to address, but the Catholic health system will not be free to ''employ'' ANY people at all if it is forced to shut down for moral reasons.

What I was suggesting is that I am not a Catholic. I have worked at a Catholic University, and I was treated as an employee.. not a Catholic minion. That is how it should be.

Originally posted by Old_alum:
Please explain how the Obama regs and my objection to them has ANYTHING to do with the expense of birth control.

Bluntly, what else do you think that will accomplish? Usage will not go down. The only thing that will be different is the price that the end user will pay with or without insurance. That is all.


Originally posted by Old_alum:
1. Since you have ''faith'' are there any beliefs you have under that ''faith'' that you would want the government to prohibit in such a way that it would make you unemployable?
2. Why would anyone categorically disparage ''religion'' in toto based on the statements or actions of any individual, even if it were the Pope or the Dalai Lama, himself?

1. I can't even fathom what that would be.

2. It isn't one person, I have had many experiences which have made me realize organized religion just isn't for me... at least right now. But when prominent religious figures send this stuff out to people who are incredibly impressionable and say the President just told them to go to hell, it does annoy me.
 
Upon reading a letter in my own Diocese just now and rereading the Pittsburgh letter I must correct myself for not being more careful and I should always be less adamant.



Merge is right that a primary thrust of the new legislation is aimed at the health-insurance offered and subsidized by all Catholic employers. I said health insurance was not impacted. I was wrong and I apologize to Merge and all other posters.



Hereafter is my original, incomplete and partially inaccurate post.
END of Edit.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -




Those points were all irrelevant to the OP but it opens a 2nd dialogue.

As I understand Donnie, the chemical formulae of birth control does treat some medical maladies. But as further pointed out they are not intended for birth control in those cases. I learned something. But it is still irrelevant to the OP.

I am not sure whether you are saying that nothing comes to your mind which you believe in or that in fact your "faith" entails no belief system, so hypothetically if there were and the government outlawed it. what would you do?

Finally, if you care to share a few of your disappointments in religion I suspect we might deduce they were human errors of their's or of yours.

But you now seem to understand your original confusion, right?


This post was edited on 2/4 6:27 PM by Old_alum
 
One more point

When the bishop said Obama's admin was saying that Catholics "could go to hell" I am sure he was speaking literally because that would be the result---literally---if Catholics were to comply with these regs---and Obama obviously, could not care less.

Hence. He is anti-Christian.
 
Yet another.

The Church cares about people's souls infinitely more than about their bodies but it also cares about human life & health intrinsically more than Obama's folks seem to. Hence your "extra expense" argument---while still irrelevant---is in this case also specious, no?

This post was edited on 2/4 10:29 AM by Old_alum
 
Originally posted by Merge:
But when prominent religious figures send this stuff out to people who are incredibly impressionable and say the President just told them to go to hell, it does annoy me.

There's the rub. Religious people are "incredibly impressionable?" Clearly, you have no respect, so it's no wonder you speak the way you do. Ironically, you're so poorly informed, it's a joke. MUCH smarter and more educated people than you are religious. Faith is a different way of thinking, to be sure, but it's not being a Rev. Jones devotee.


I'm still waiting for your response to the original point of this entire thread: do you think it's right for the government to force people and institutions to perform actions against their conscientious objections? Answer the question. If you won't, then at least acknowledge. If you can't at least concede a point in an argument, then it's clear who the "highly impressionable" liberal talking-point-repeating drone is. And it ain't old alum.
 
Upon reading a letter in my own Diocese just now and rereading the Pittsburgh letter I must correct myself for not being more careful and I should always be less adamant.



Merge is right that a primary thrust of the new legislation is aimed at the health-insurance offered and subsidized by all Catholic employers. I said health insurance was not impacted. I was wrong and I apologize to Merge and all other posters.



Hereafter is my original, incomplete and partially inaccurate post.
END of Edit.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -




Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by Old_alum:
I am not sure what in the OP this is even attempting to address, but the Catholic health system will not be free to ''employ'' ANY people at all if it is forced to shut down for moral reasons.

What I was suggesting is that I am not a Catholic. I have worked at a Catholic University, and I was treated as an employee.. not a Catholic minion. That is how it should be.



You work for a Catholic university. Great! You say you are currently properly treated as an employee and not as some ''Catholic minion''. I am not sure what a Catholic minion is ''treated like'' but if you do not like it, then I am pleased for you that you are not unhappy. The point is that nothing in the new Obama regs will change any of that, so it is irrelevant. That said, if it were not a Catholic university but a Catholic hospital for whom you work, then as a direct result of these regs you might find yourself unemployed altogether as the hospital would very likely have to shut down rather than compromise their principles.


Originally posted by Merge:

It isn't one person, I have had many experiences which have made me realize organized religion just isn't for me... at least right now. But when prominent religious figures send this stuff out to people who are incredibly impressionable and say the President just told them to go to hell, it does annoy me.


The key point is that one should never go from the particular to the universal.

If we got rid of democracy because many democratic leaders are inept or corrupt, it would be foolish. If we got rid of college basketball because many coaches cheat at recruiting it would be foolish.

Churchill said that democracy is the worst political system except for all the rest.

This side of heaven nothing is perfect.

Human nature has a lower selfish side that when fed can become perverted and evil. Religion does not eliminate that part of human nature. Taking Holy Orders does not eliminate that part of human nature either. There are bad priests, bad mullahs, bad coaches, bad bankers, bad message board posters but none of those justify elininating the entire category. IMHO religion does not cure human fraility but it does shift the bell curve away from selfishness and toward loving.

If any of your ''many experiences'' was a categorical condemnation of religion, please share it with us, because I am not aware of any such travesty. Seriously. Please.

If not, then your logic seems to be specious.

This post was edited on 2/4 6:30 PM by Old_alum
 
My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Upon reading a letter in my own Diocese just now and rereading the Pittsburgh letter I must correct myself for not being more careful and I should always be less adamant in my opinion (Some of us find it hard to change, I am afraid).

Merge was right that a primary thrust of the new legislation is aimed at the health-insurance offered and subsidized by all Catholic employers. I said health insurance was not impacted. I was wrong and I apologize to Merge and all other posters.

That said, the basic principle is the same:
Should the government be allowed to compel a Church to violate its own principles?

I still say no!

I still expect the U S Supreme Court will knock this down.

And I still see a good chance that the Federal legislature will pass laws to eviscerate these regs.
 
Originally posted by NewAdvent.org:
It came to pass also, that seven brethren, together with their mother, were apprehended, and compelled by the king to eat swine's flesh against the law, for which end they were tormented with whips and scourges. But one of them, who was the eldest, said thus: What would you ask, or learn of us? We are ready to die, rather than to transgress the laws of God, received from our fathers.

2 Maccabees 7
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general



Absolutely never!!! And yet Muslims can get religious waivers from this abomination of a healthcare law.

Forgetting religion (I'm not a big sympathizer of organized religion), this is a massive over-reach of government power that just tramples the Constitution.

226055.jpg
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by Old_alum:
Upon reading a letter in my own Diocese just now and rereading the Pittsburgh letter I must correct myself for not being more careful and I should always be less adamant in my opinion (Some of us find it hard to change, I am afraid).

Merge was right that a primary thrust of the new legislation is aimed at the health-insurance offered and subsidized by all Catholic employers. I said health insurance was not impacted. I was wrong and I apologize to Merge and all other posters.

That said, the basic principle is the same:
Should the government be allowed to compel a Church to violate its own principles?

I still say no!

I still expect the U S Supreme Court will knock this down.

And I still see a good chance that the Federal legislature will pass laws to eviscerate these regs.

The more I researched it, and if you look at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops website, it is clear that they want to pressure faith-based hospitals to perform procedures that they have not before.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by Old_alum:
Should the government be allowed to compel a Church to violate its own principles?

I still say no! .

Hate to answer a question with another question, but lets say for example that someone tries to kill themselves.
That is a moral sin by the Catholic definition. Should the Church be allowed to deny insurance coverage for treatment of a failed suicide attempt?

How about drug use? Does the church also get to waive coverage for illness from drug use?

Just because the church itself doesn't believe those acts to be acceptable, does that mean they get to determine the rules of their employees who do not share the same faith?
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by Merge:

Hate to answer a question with another question, but lets say for example that someone tries to kill themselves.
That is a moral sin by the Catholic definition. Should the Church be allowed to deny insurance coverage for treatment of a failed suicide attempt?

How about drug use? Does the church also get to waive coverage for illness from drug use?

Just because the church itself doesn't believe those acts to be acceptable, does that mean they get to determine the rules of their employees who do not share the same faith?

I think there might be some confusion about your interpretation here.

First, the Catholic Church has been, is and shall remain second to none in the care for the hurt or diseased, whatever the source of the malady. The Church recommends ‘penance’ after a person confesses wrong-doing (sin) to aid in his/her reformation but it never seeks retribution or metes out punishment. That’s up to God hereafter.

Your questions above deal with people who are hurt or diseased as a result of a previous action not approved by the Church. You first cite a failed-suicide. IMHO not only would the church treat such a sad person but it would also continue to offer commercially available health insurance for him/her (if an employee) and would probably provide free treatment if no insurance were still available. This is treating the result of a moral or mortal sin, not facilitating it. A more comparable, alternative question might be: should the church be required to provide arsenic for a mentally depressed employee expressing a desire for suicide. IMHO it would not comply with that order either, on moral grounds. (Unless you or Donnie tell me there are alternative and medically efficacious uses of arsenic! LOL)

Your second example is a drug user. Would the Church balk at insurance to supply heroin ex ante? Yes! Would the Church supply insurance that covers Methadone in a medically authorized rehab program? I think it probably does already.

The answer to your final question, about ‘‘determin(ing) the rules of their employees who do not share the same faith’’ is simple. IMHO the Catholic Church will not agree to supply any procedure or drug (or the insurance thereon) which solely facilitates any act it considers morally unacceptable (e.g. abortion, contraception, etc.). The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the First Amendment rights of association, religious establishment and religious practice. IMHO it will be the Association on which this will most likely be overturned, e.g. the Boy Scouts have been told they need not ‘associate’ themselves with counselors who choose a homosexual preference. IMHO the USSC should rule that clerks and janitors and doctors need not work for a Catholic hospital or university, but if they choose to associate with them as employees then they must accept the standard benefits and conditions made available to all employees of those institutions. If one chooses to work for a Muslim organization one cannot demand pork. If one chooses to work for a Jewish organization one should not expect to publicly deny that the holocaust happened.

If it is not freedom of association then it certainly should be religion. On the establishment of faith or ecclesiastical rule or custom or law, the government must leave such determinations to the religious institutions, themselves, in accordance with their own beliefs. On freedom of religious practice, while the government can and has outlawed a religious practice (such as polygamy) it should never force or mandate that any person (human or corporate IMHO) MUST perform any act that person considers immoral. That is un-American and un-Constitutional IMHO.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

The more I researched it, and if you look at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops website, it is clear that they want to pressure faith-based hospitals to perform procedures that they have not before.

I, too, believe that is correct, Donnie, but the regs ALSO revolve around Obama mandating the providion of insurance to cover them, as I read it now.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

"Your questions above deal with people who are hurt or diseased as a result of a previous action not approved by the Church."

Not really. My question was relating to something that happened while being employed by a Catholic institution.

How about this. Should the church cover drugs that help with sexually transmitted diseases? In theory, a healthy couple who does not have premarital sex should never have to worry about such a disease. Correct?

Again, my only point is about the fact that Catholic institutions employ people of differing beliefs.

They should not be forced to do anything, but they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against their employees with different beliefs either.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by Merge:
"Your questions above deal with people who are hurt or diseased as a result of a previous action not approved by the Church."

Not really. My question was relating to something that happened while being employed by a Catholic institution.
Merge, did you even read beyond that first line you quoted?

The crux of the question is whether, in a free country, the government may force a religious community to facilitate acts----in the future (since not the past they are still ''preventable'')----which it views as morally wrong.

First, any act from the past is history (water over the bridge, spilt milk) and is always to be forgiven.

Second, whether such acts had been performed while the people were or were not employees of a Catholic organization is both (a) in the past; and, (b) irrelevant---i.e. not worth even discussing to evaluate the accuracy of the thesis. It is the actions by the Catholic organizations----NOT those by their employees----that are at issue.

To you this might sound like pretext, or at least context, but it is neither. The Church teaches that God does not care what people have or have not done, but only what they will or will not do from this point forward. So the context does not matter.

The Church is dedicated to saving all souls, but each of its members (clergy, administrators, doctors, nurses) is totally responsible for her/his own soul----which will in fact ‘’go to hell’’ (literally) if one violates his/her moral principles, even if under duress from the government. This is not a matter of pragmatics but of metaphysics. Such might seem anachronistic or even quaint to you---or to Obama, but to me and to other religious believers such choices are even more important than economic welfare or even health. The quote from 2 Maccabees 7 above was meant to add context for you.

Originally posted by Merge:
How about this. Should the church cover drugs that help with sexually transmitted diseases? In theory, a healthy couple who does not have premarital sex should never have to worry about such a disease. Correct?

Again, the past is the past and ex post the Church will do all it can to ameliorate the consequences of any immoral act. Physical and metaphysical consequences.

Ex ante, before the fact, the Church and its members should refuse to facilitate an immoral act but should, rather, seek to prevent it---a moral prophylactic as it were.

Originally posted by Merge:
Again, my only point is about the fact that Catholic institutions employ people of differing beliefs.

They should not be forced to do anything, but they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against their employees with different beliefs either.

Again I have to ask if you are even bothering to read what we write. This is a constitutional question. I laid out the three Constitutional principles on which these deplorable regulations should be overturned. Are you choosing to ignore them out of laziness, disdain or, as Donnie implied, fear of being proven wrong? I can think of no other explanation.

That said, I shall not reciprocate by ignoring your point that an employer ‘’shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against their employees with different beliefs’’. The old saw is that it is the exception that proves the rule. The Constitutional principle of freedom of association addresses this. So please either make the time to read it & respond or else merely resign from the field, quietly or not.

Originally posted by Merge:
Again, my only point is ….They should not be forced to do anything….
Merge, in this point you say it all! Under the US Constitution NO ONE ‘’should…be forced to do anything’’ against his moral principles. Period! You made our point. Obama is anti-Christian.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by Old_alum:
but each of its members (clergy, administrators, doctors, nurses) is totally responsible for her/his own soul----which will in fact ‘’go to hell’’ (literally) if one violates his/her moral principles, even if under duress from the government.
The each of those people should be responsible for themselves. I am sorry. I will not agree that providing insurance for birth control violates MY principles... especially when I am a man and there are very few repercussions from sex for men.

Originally posted by Old_alum:
This is a constitutional question. I laid out the three Constitutional principles on which these deplorable regulations should be overturned. Are you choosing to ignore them out of laziness, disdain or, as Donnie implied, fear of being proven wrong?olates his/her moral principles, even if under duress from the government.
There are a few reasons. Similar mandates have been upheld in CA and NY.
I don't believe employers, like Seton Hall should block their employees from having coverage that has been mandated for religious reasons when they employ people of differing faiths.

Originally posted by Old_alum:
Merge, in this point you say it all! Under the US Constitution NO ONE ‘’should…be forced to do anything’’ against his moral principles. Period! You made our point. Obama is anti-Christian.
If you don't want to take birth control... Great, don't. No moral principle violated.

However, I do not believe a group of people that will NEVER have the need for birth control should be deciding how moral it is to use it. The church's view on sex and birth control is pre-historic. More than 90% of Catholics have used some sort of birth control. These types of statements from the Church, especially when saying our President is anti-Christian, is exactly what drives people away from the church.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by Merge:

The church's view on sex and birth control is pre-historic. More than 90% of Catholics have used some sort of birth control. These types of statements from the Church, especially when saying our President is anti-Christian, is exactly what drives people away from the church.


First off, dogma is pretty set in stone. Secondly, our President is a jerk, and a terrible leader, but I don't believe he's particularly anti-Christian, and that was old_alum's editorializing, not the Bishop.



I love it when someone who doesn't practice their faith takes shots like your last one, as if you know what drives people to or from church. Here's why people stop going to church: They don't like rules or being told what to do; they don't like having a mirror held up to their thoughts and actions, and many in society are more interested in Real Housewives than Jesus Christ. You'd have to be blind not to see the decline of American culture going hand in hand with generations who don't hold their God in enough esteem to skip Sunday morning kids' soccer games.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

"as if you know what drives people to or from church."

As someone who has friends and family members who have been driven away, and who has personally been driven away from the church. I actually do know something about why people leave.

It wasn't because I don't like the rules. It was because I questioned the rules and didn't blindly follow them.

I am perfectly fine with my actions. I welcome a mirror.
This post was edited on 2/8 9:28 AM by Merge
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Merge,

Last night when I first read your latest response my thought was: 'WOW! Can he be serious?'

I was incredulous!

Then I mulled it for awhile and realized: ‘Of course, he is probably a Gen-Yer.’ As Ricky told Lucy in the ‘50s, ‘‘That ‘splains it!’’

The Greatest Generation taught us Boomers discipline and values. Then some boomers perfected the ‘New Morality’, aka ‘Situational Ethics’ or ‘Relativism’. There were no absolutes. This rapidly decayed into ‘If it feels good, do it!’

We Boomers then taught the Gen-X-ers a few values but no discipline. Unfortunately, with no discipline the Gen-X-ers seemed to teach the Gen-Y-ers nothing but how to spend a buck. So it seems we have a whole generation and a half of self-focused consumers, with few other dimensions.

Initially I asked myself if your post reflected anything from the history, philosophy or theology that Seton Hall always taught, but then I remembered that core curriculum has gone the way of the dodo bird.

IMHO many Gen-X-ers and Y-ers are like the blind men and the elephant. If you don’t know it, you should read it. Each thought his limited perspective (tactile, only) was absolute. None saw the whole picture.

When you finish that parable, you should reread (or initially consume) the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Short of that, review your sixth grade American History book to see what our forebearers suffered to get those freedoms. Please do something to expand your horizon!

In any event, the U S Supreme Court members always seem to understand that there are others besides self-oriented consumers. Thank God! (If you are not familiar with Him I would enjoy introducing you. He already knows you very well!)

I don’t know why I should proceed with our dialogue, except that where there’s life, there’s hope, so I shall.


Originally posted by Merge:



The each [sic] of those people should be responsible for themselves. I am sorry. I will not agree that providing insurance for birth control violates MY principles... especially when I am a man and there are very few repercussions from sex for men.
Let’s proceed simply: ‘’Them’’ connotes third person plural. “MY” connotes first person singular. Do you understand the disparity?

All I can say about your statement: ’’few repercussions from sex for men’’ is a Y-er acronym: OMG!
Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by Old_alum:
This is a constitutional question. I laid out the three Constitutional principles on which these deplorable regulations should be overturned. Are you choosing to ignore them out of laziness, disdain or, as Donnie implied, fear of being proven wrong?



There are a few reasons.

Similar mandates have been upheld in CA and NY.


I don't believe employers, like Seton Hall should block their employees from having coverage that has been mandated for religious reasons when they employ people of differing faiths.

''Similar mandates have been upheld in CA and NY’’ is a reason??

''Similar’’? Such a violation of First Amendment rights is, I am confident, unprecedented!

What ''mandates’’? Issued by whom and when?

''Upheld’’ by whom??

Please cite laws and court record numbers as this is news to me.

When you say: ''block their employees from having coverage that has been mandated for religious reasons when they employ people of differing faiths'', with considerable effort I think I can make sense of it.

First, the Church does not now and does not seek to ''block'' anyone from having any coverage at all. Every American is free to buy whatever coverage he or she desires. That is the way it should be. What should NOT be is forcing any American to supply something he/she finds morally objectionable to anyone. If you need further help to discern the difference, I can suggest some good remedial comprehension people.

Second, what exactly do you mean by ''mandated for religious reasons''?? Mandated by whom?

Third, when you say ''employ people of differing faith'' are you implying that such emplyment is a ''right'' of those people? Most I know consider that when one is given a job it is a privilege to be grateful for.

Did you not read or not understand the Constitutional principle of freedom of association that the USSC has affirmed on multiple occassions? Would you prefer that all Catholic instutions layoff all non-Catholics? Or if they were to shut their doors based on moral principles?

Inquiring minds want to know!



Originally posted by Merge:





Originally posted by Old_alum:
Merge, in this point you say it all! Under the US Constitution NO ONE ‘’should…be forced to do anything’’ against his moral principles. Period! You made our point. Obama is anti-Christian.

However, I do not believe a group of people that will NEVER have the need for birth control should be deciding how moral it is to use it.
So, in your view all moral authority is based solely on personal practice?

There is no criterion for historical precedent?
For legal precedent?
For religious precedent?
For reason?
For objective analysis?

How curious!

I guess you would then think that the only ones who can decide the morality of murder is a murderer, right?
The morality of theft is set only by thieves?

Merge, I think this takes situational ethics to a new, all-time low!




Originally posted by Merge:





The church's view on sex and birth control is pre-historic.
Your logic is as bad as your rhetoric!
Does the term ‘non sequitur’ mean anything to you?


Originally posted by Merge:




More than 90% of Catholics have used some sort of birth control.


And you know this how? From personal observation? If not, please cite the source.

Even if this were accurate----which I am sure it is not----it is still specious to equate practice with theory.




Originally posted by Merge:

These types of statements from the Church, especially when saying our President is anti-Christian, is exactly what drives people away from the church.


And you know this how? From personal observation? If not, please cite the source.

As Donnie already highlighted for you, it is I, personally, and NOT the Church who concluded that Obama is anti-Christian, and I have heard no cogent refutation of that conclusion.

Nevertheless, I would love to hear you try to explain HOW the statement of a logical syllogism would cause a contrary reaction from anyone save the illogical? Are you admitting that anyone driven from the Church must be illogical?

Alas, I fear that trying to have a logical or historical discussion with you might be hopeless.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

Originally posted by Merge:
"as if you know what drives people to or from church."

As someone who has friends and family members who have been driven away, and who has personally been driven away from the church. I actually do know something about why people leave.

It wasn't because I don't like the rules. It was because I questioned the rules and didn't blindly follow them.

I am perfectly fine with my actions. I welcome a mirror.

Here we go again. I think it is fair to say that when a collective noun is used, it is incumbent upon the writer to specify any qualifier(s) that might limit or restrict the inference made to the collective class as a whole.

Perhaps your original post meant to say ‘‘such statements are what have [occasionally] driven a [few of the] people [I know] away from the Church,’’ because as we discussed earlier it is illogical to jump from the particular to the universal.

If I infer correctly from your statement, you were once a member of the Catholic Church. Further you reiterate that you were driven away from the Catholic Church. Finally, you state that the reason you were driven away from the Catholic Church is not because the Church made rules with which you were uncomfortable (you say you did not dislike them) but rather solely because you had no right to question them in theory. Is this what you meant?

I shall assume not.

I infer, therefore, what you meant by ''blindly follow’’ was you ''did not enjoy following’’ those rules that you did not dislike.

If so, then I am more confident than before that you are a Gen-Y-er! If it feels good, do it!

If my inference is incorrect, please tell me which rules you would not ''blindly follow’’ and why.


By the way, rest assured that in the hereafter God shall provide you with the ''welcomed'' mirror you speak of.
 
Re: My apologies to Merge and the board in general

You are making an awful lot of assumptions.

I will clarify a few things.
I am 33 years old. When I was 13 I started challenging my religious upbringing and beliefs. I wanted something more service oriented where I could help people rather than sitting in a Church to be my form of worship. I joined a Methodist church where they had an active youth group and many service opportunities which I participated in, and started to run as a youth leader into my 20's. I have been a participant in many religious weekend/weeklong retreats and outreach projects as well.

Your characterization of me as a gen y, “if it feels good, do it” is garbage. I have dedicated a tremendous amount of my time and energy for causes that did not feel good to me, but felt right. I haven’t lead a perfect life by any means, but I am comfortable saying that I have lived more closely with what God wants from people than many members of the churches I was involved with.

I have had many personal issues with the teachings of certain Churches as well as some individuals associated with them. I have shared my opinions and beliefs with Priests, Pastors, friends and family.

I have studied Christianity, Buddhism, Islamism and Hinduism on my own to have a better understanding. My formal education was Business.

In 2002, New York passed the women’s health and Wellness act which was challenged by the Catholic Charities of Albany. Their complaint was rejected by all three levels of New York state courts. That court ruled on the basis of a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which barred most religion-based exemptions from laws that are neutral, generally applicable and that do not single out religion for special burdens.

That is why I do not care for your constitutional argument. The precedent has been established.

Regarding the moral authority, anyone can murder someone. Only women can get pregnant, and I do not think an organization that (in my opinion) already treats women as a lesser class, should be the ones deciding that morality.

According to this article, 98% of Catholic women have used some type of birth control
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/catholics-support-contraception-mandate_n_1261046.html

This article also has a nun who shares my beliefs.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/bishop_lennon_condemns_new_con.html

"Sister Christine Schenk, a local nun and certified nurse midwife, says the bishops are being disingenuous because the new rule does not force anyone to use contraception."

No Catholic is being coerced into using birth control," she said.
"On the books, church teachings say that birth control is not allowed," said Schenk. "But the vast majority of Catholics have not accepted the church's teaching on contraception.
"So, you have to ask yourself," she added, "'Who are the bishops speaking for?' It sounds like they're speaking for themselves rather than the Catholic people."
This post was edited on 2/8 1:01 PM by Merge
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT