President Obama doubling down on contraception mandate
Yeah. Well it’s absolutely true that religious liberty is critical… that’s the reason why we exempted churches, we exempted religious institutions.
But we did say that big Catholic hospitals or universities who employ a lot of non-Catholics, and who receive a lot of federal money, that for them to be in a position to say to a woman who works there you can’t get that from your insurance company, even though the institution isn’t paying for it, that that crosses the line where that woman, she suddenly is gonna have to bear the burden and the cost of that.
And that’s not fair.
~ President Barack Obama defending the Health and Human Services ruling on mandatory contraception coverage by religious-affiliated organizations during an interview with New Orleans’ WWL-TV, via Mediaite, July 10
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Only tangentially related to post.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak
It is a good thing the obamateur is not a woman. He would never arrive anywhere on time because he has so many faces to on which to apply make up.
Trying to apply lipstick at the same time he is tallking out of both sides of his mouth and licking his lying lips with his forked tongue would be a labor of self love.
Read that again. Can this man put together a coherent English sentence?
“we exempted SOME religious institutions.”
There, fixed that for ya Barack.
“But we did say that big Catholic hospitals or universities who employ a lot of non-Catholics, and who receive a lot of federal money”
The HHS mandate has nothing to do with receiving federal money. I sure hope the President understands that.
Lrning, Obama and his ilk consider *all* money to be federal money, they are just ‘polite’ enough (or rather too busy enough) to let some citizens and states use some of that federal money without it first being dispensed directly from a federal entity.
A lot of saying a lot of sounds like a lot of BS to me.
I think it translates as: “you’re all gonna pay a lot of new taxes to pay for a lot of things you don’t want or need, and you Catholics, (oh, this is a lot of fun), you’re gonna pay a lot more than everyone else… “
The HHS Mandate against religious freedom applies to all schools, clinics, and charitable services — whether they receive federal funding or not.
And just because some federal agency likes the work that we do for the poor or in educating the next generation, and even grants us some of their welfare/education budget in order to efficiently serve the citizenry – this does not give any agency the authority to deny our religious freedom or force us to violate our conscience.
Obama knows this. He’s lying and he knows it. This is campaign spin.
Religious freedom has become a losing position for him. He’s trying to make the Catholic Church seem cruel and unfair and uncool. He knows that anti-Catholic sentiment runs deep in American culture, and he’s drilling down to that.
“for them to be in a position to say to a woman who works there you can’t get that from your insurance company, even though the institution isn’t paying for it, that that crosses the line”
That’s the real bold lie right there. First of all, the idea that insurance needs to cover things that cost less than a day’s pay is idiotic. Second, no employee of a Catholic institution is forbidden from declining coverage through work and getting there own. Working for a pro-life organization now coerced under El Presidente’s dictate, I once had my own health insurance, which unfortunately did happen to cover abortions. I stopped honestly listening when that man’s lips moved a long time ago.
Case in point, why not require free food insurance coverage? After all, many people pay more for food over a year as contraception, so why isn’t food free through health insurance? What happens if your refrigerator fails, how ever will you find sustenance without insurance to replace your spoiled yogurt?
The difference between “food insurance” and the contraception mandate is this: Food is natural need…. but contraception is an addiction.
People aren’t afraid of running out of food. They’ll figure out a way to get fed, if worse comes to worse. Nobody starves in America.
But addicts are very afraid of running out of their addiction. Addicts become irrational when their drug of choice is threatened. See how effective Obama’s claim has been — that bald-faced lie that Republicans want to ban contraception in a “war against women.”
Obamacare (“s) …NOT! Either way he gets what he wants which is population control. The Catholic Church will allow birth control and sterilizations equaling fewer people in future generations OR their hospitals close which means fewer people in the immediate future. How is that for being pro-choice?
Do you think God will make hell bigger for all those who seem to want to go there or is it suppose to be “Hell on earth”?
Del, well, people *do* starve in America, but, realistically, almost all of them do so because either them or their legal guardians are spending ‘food money’ to pay for their addictions to non-life-supporting things.
Children starve in America, homeless people starve in America. People go without electricity to buy food, at times. It happens.
Comparing contraception to drug addiction, even in a facetious manner is a silly analogy and frankly a bit offensive.
Mr. Obama …. Oh good grief. You wanna know what’s not fair?
What’s not fair is the slaughter of 56 million unborn Americans since Roe.
What’s not fair is the federal government stealing my hard-earned money to pay for someone else’s abortions, food, healthcare, poor decisions, whatever.
What’s not fair is that in the supposed “land of the free,” YOU and your pathetic cronies are forcing Catholics and protestants – all law-abiding American citizens – to violate the higher law that they abide by just so you can control this country.
What’s not fair is your political lap dogs jamming this absurd mandate down the throat of the American public – against the public’s will – just to push your precious agenda.
What’s not fair is that you are overtaxing and overspending beyond what our economy can handle, laying the foundation for a bleak economic future for those children fortunate enough to survive the holocaust of the unborn.
That, sir, is what is unfair!!
There are worse things than being offended.
Before I knew about the pill’s effects, I took it for the first two years of our marriage. We were in college and both working about 20 hours a week.
I paid for my own birth control without any difficulty whatsoever.
What about life-saving asthma rescue inhalers as freebies? What about diabetes meds as freebies? No, see, it’s just birth control, because like everybody knows, preventing pregnancy is WAY more important than those things.
My electric bill, transportation bill and housing costs are all a burden. Does that mean that the federal government needs to be sure that I am not burdened and pay my bills? of course not! Costs here, obviously are not the point. as a previous commentator said – it’s all about population control, and might I add – dependence on government.
Without a moral center – government becomes the end-all, give-all and controlling-all entity. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. We have an entitlement-mentality – people want their perks without doing things for the common good or sacrificing for others. We have our priorities skewed – if health care was really about health care, we would be sure that basics would be covered – and that medicines and help that saves and preserves life would be covered – not contraception, sterilization and a monthly surcharge for elective abortions.
Don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain. There is an agenda, and it ain’t pretty.
Those 5k braces my daughter needs–I sure wish I could get some justice with that.
LOL, I got a new slogan: “WE DEMAND ORTHODONTIC JUSTICE!!”
Ninek, let’s perform the “Braces Monologues” on the White House lawns! Those who have ever had braces or will ever need braces need JUSTICE! JUSTICE I SAY!!!! Keep your hands out off my teeth…. But I’ll take your tax dollars, if you please!
;)
More of Obamacare (‘s) … NOT!
Pro-choice? More like a POOR choice of doctors if you can find one!
See this article: Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/#ixzz20KMhbdeU
No braces, no peace.
Yes!! I need a piece of that Ortho Pie!!
Ugh, you guys are reminding me of my days with braces. Although, I must say my parents were very lucky they had good insurance! (Actually, it didn’t pay for all of it, my mouth was very expensive to fix).
“WE DEMAND ORTHODONTIC JUSTICE!!”
At least you declare with a straight face [no commentary on homosexuality intended] and hopefully straight teeth that you put your money where your mouth is.
KTB, LOL.
It’s Obamadoesntcare, don’t cha know.
LL
This debate is about two things:
1) Can government mandate certain components of a health care plan? The answer has been yes for a long time.
2) Are religious schools, medical facilities, and other organizations the exact same thing as churches? At the state level, it has been yes for quite a while in many states. Now we test it at more of a federal level.
Are religious schools, medical facilities, and other organizations the exact same thing as churches?
Nice try, but no, that isn’t what this debate is about. But you already knew that.
To paraphrase Ex-GOP on July 11, 2012 at 8:39 pm:
This debate is about two things:
1) Can a federal government demand I buy “health insurance”?
2) Does the state (federal government, in this case) have sovereignty over schools, medical facilities, and other organizations? Or is there a separation of church and state, where the government of the church also has influence and control (e.g. school curriculum or medical ethics would seem to be the jurisdiction of the church, although there is room for civics from the state, for example).
In God we trust. And no, the founding fathers did not envision an Allah. Their religion was rooted in the Christian church and in the Bible.
Lrning -
Exact same thing in regards to the mandate.
Churches are exempt.
Business aren’t exempt.
So is a catholic hospital more of a church, or more of a business.
That’s the debate.
Hard to believe that we’re having this debate. Why should the government impose its moral views on the church when there are alternatives available for providing free contraceptives (i.e, allow a tax credit on your income tax return)? I’m sure there are other alternatives to shoving this down the throat of the Catholic church. The Obama administration is a big bully. Hope Christians wake up and see where this is leading our nation.
Barb -
Nothing is being forced on catholic churches.
And even on catholic institutions, the word “forced” is a bit misleading, as nobody is being forced to use anything.
“So is a catholic hospital more of a church, or more of a business. That’s the debate.”
No, it isn’t. No one is debating whether Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities are more like churches than businesses. That debate would presume that churches are the only entities afforded free exercise of religion by the First Amendment.
Do you seriously, seriously not understand the HHS mandate debate…after all this time?!? You strike me as an intelligent person, so if you seriously do not understand this debate it is because you don’t want to.
Individuals (and religious institutions) are granted free exercise of religion. In the EXERCISE (living out) of one’s faith [such as fulfilling our obligation to perform corporal and spiritual works of mercy], can an individual (or religious institution) be mandated to ACT AGAINST their faith? That is the debate!
Ron Paul is against anything that’s unconstitutional-and that includes giving the Supreme Court the right to over-ride the constitution-as they have done with the HHS mandate and as they have with Roe Vs Wade–Mitt Romney won’t re-organize the role fo the supreme court-Ron Paul will, if elected!
The revolution will not be televised!
Ron Paul 2012: Restore America
Change it BACK!
The Revolution has begun.
“as they have done with the HHS mandate”
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the HHS mandate.
Barb wrote, “Why should the government impose its moral views on the church when there are alternatives available for providing free contraceptives (i.e, allow a tax credit on your income tax return)?”
Ex-GOP replied, “Nothing is being forced on catholic churches. And even on catholic institutions, the word ‘forced’ is a bit misleading, as nobody is being forced to use anything.”
Yes, something very definitely is being forced on Roman Catholic churches, the statist religion and consequent (im)morality of the current government administration under President Obama. Instead of taking heed to the authority of the church in its pronouncement of morality (traditional marriage, for example, and the sanctity of human life), the state is attempting the opposite, to dictate to the church what its morality should be. Instead of a separation of church and state, we have a subservience of church to state. Big (civil) government and the state religion has entirely taken over.
The word forced is not at all misleading (though Barb did not use it). Ex-GOP is misleading. He is the blind leading the blind.
Those 5k braces my daughter needs–I sure wish I could get some justice with that.
Obamnocare actually reduces the amount of tax deferred savings we can put into Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA’s) to pay medical bills. That kicks in in January 2013 (after the election). Orthodontia be damned!
ex says:
Nothing is being forced on catholic churches.
And even on catholic institutions, the word “forced” is a bit misleading, as nobody is being forced to use anything.
Believe what you want and spin it as you will ex, but the mandate is being imposed not only Catholic institutitions, but on Catholic employers and other faith based organizations as well. The conseqences of non-compliance appear to be draconian fines…and who knows what else. Your hero Obama is really quite a pathetic figure.
By the way, your use of the small case “c” is duly noted.
Jerry, I think you should be flattered that Ex-GOP used a small c. But he was just being careless. As a Protestant, I refuse to speak of Roman Catholic churches as being the one true Church of Christ all over the world and of all time. That’s what catholic means; universal is a synonym.
Obamnocare stops tax-payers from being able to use tax-deferred medical savings accounts to pay for medicines but forces all tax-payers to pay for peoples contraception. What a bunch of CRAP,
Those 5k braces my daughter needs–I sure wish I could get some justice with that.
No, sir! That would be socialism! Orthodontia is for the rich & lucky only. It would be terrible if the poor masses had straight teeth. And caring about your neighbor’s access to health care is some sort of hippie Christ-like thing to do.
Same extends to BC pills. I’m tired of getting free BC pills when I’m leaving church each week. St. Elmo’s just hasn’t been the same since Obama made the priest start handing out those little pills along with the church bulletin. Then we have to stand right there in the vestibule and wash one down with communion wine! How embarrassing! (Anyway, I say if you’re too poor to buy the pill, you should just have kids!)
And if you’re taking hormonal BC for other gynecological purposes (which is pretty likely for most women, but let’s not give them the benefit of the doubt), too bad! You can sit over there with the kids with the crooked teeth. I’m not going to have your cyst-free uterus on MY conscience.
Lrning – I seriously thought that went without saying. Churches can exercise their free exercise, which is why they are exempt from this policy. So the discussion is, are these universities and medical facilities considered a church in regards to an exemption.
Sorry for the confusion, but I thought it was clear from the get go that the reason that churches were exempt was because of long standing rules regarding exercise of religion. Were there other options?
Jon -
Feel free to post any regulations that have been put out there that pertain to churches that are limiting their free exercise of religion. Build your case.
Jerry -
Obama is far from my hero – Jesus is my ultimate hero, and gets the upper case capitalization.
I can buy the argument that if you were forced to take birth control pills, that your free exercise of religion is being infringed on.
For years, taxpayers have supported all sorts of things that violate their beliefs – and lawsuits have had very little success. The death penalty reigns supreme in many states that have people of faith that disagree with the death penalty based on sanctity of life arguments.
Ex-GOP, Lrning’s comment on July 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm should suffice. Also, take a look again at the heading Jill gave this post we’re commenting on. Also read my previous comments under this post, and you’ll find a few more easy examples. I’ve already “built my case.”
Life is religion. I suspect that you compartmentalize religion and make it a Sunday morning worship service or something like that.
Jon
There’s no reason to be a jerk. I don’t only make my faith a Sunday morning worship thing, and just because you feel threatened that somebody doesn’t agree with you 100% of the time doesn’t mean that you need to throw around judgmental comments. That’s what people hate about Christians – when the condescending, judgmental attitude comes out based on what you simply believe to be true about somebody that you haven’t taken the time to talk to.
I see no case that you’ve built – but let’s just agree to disagree on this.
Ex-GOP wrote, “The death penalty reigns supreme in many states that have people of faith that disagree with the death penalty based on sanctity of life arguments.”
The death penalty for premeditated murder is in accord with God’s command to Noah and his descendants (you and me) after God had wiped out everybody else because of their violence in killing each other. See Genesis 9. A basic principle of justice, which the civil government is supposed to administer, is, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Ex. 21:23-24). The punishment should fit the crime.
The death penalty for premeditated murder actually demonstrates the sanctity of human life.
Except I don’t agree with your biblical justification for the death penalty, Jon. But yet, my taxes still pay for it. Funny, how they can use my money to pay for things against my principles!
Jon – not going to debate the DP with you.
My point is, many denominations disagree with you, and yet they pay taxes just the same. Others are against wars that they fund through taxes. This is nothing new.
Ex-GOP says: So the discussion is, are these universities and medical facilities considered a church in regards to an exemption.
Sorry for the confusion, but I thought it was clear from the get go that the reason that churches were exempt was because of long standing rules regarding exercise of religion. Were there other options?
I think I overestimated your intelligence. Sorry, it won’t happen again.
No one (other than you) is discussing “are these universities and medical facilities considered a church in regards to an exemption”. They are not. No one thinks they are. The exemption rules of the HHS mandate have been written very narrowly so as to only exempt churches. The Catholic Church does not believe their universities, hospitals, and charitable organizations are churches. Catholic universities, hospitals, and charitable organizations EXIST as an EXERCISE OF THE FAITH. They are FAITH in ACTION. As we Catholics LIVE OUT OUR FAITH in accordance with Scripture (Matthew 25:35-45, 1 John 3:17, Luke 3:11, James 2:14-17), through our hospitals, universities, and charities, because of the HHS mandate, we will also have to VIOLATE our faith.
It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.
Do you exercise your faith outside of church? What if God placed on your heart a passion for helping the poor and called you to start an organization devoted to that holy work? Then the government mandated that as part of running that organization devoted to holy work, you had to VIOLATE your faith?
THAT is what this debate is about.
Ex-GOP, I wasn’t trying to be a jerk. I was really trying to understand the reason that you don’t understand. You asked me to build a case by “posting regulations that have been put out there that pertain to churches that are limiting their free exercise of religion.” I had done so.
I referred you to the title of Jill’s post, which refers to a requirement by the state that a church in health insurance plans for its various organizations must provide contraception. The Roman Catholic Church says that contraceptives are not permissible. Do we see the state looking to the spiritual guidance of the church in this area (contraception), or the state attempting to teach the church?
In my comment on July 11, 2012 at 11:48 pm I gave the examples of curriculum and medical ethics. At the private Christian school which I attended when I was growing up included Bible as a class. In fact, because life is religion, all subjects were taught from a Christian viewpoint. That means that history is not a history of women’s rights but of the Church and of Western civilization, a fusion of Judeo-Christian and Greek influence. That means that natural science clearly distinguishes people from animals, because the former were created in God’s image but the latter were not. However, in the US, particularly in California, public schools don’t provide Christian education. The state has usurped the role of the church.
I didn’t yet deal with medical ethics. The Hippocratic Oath, for example, requires that the physician do no harm. Yet in the US the state allows doctors to kill pre-born babies. Is the state taking spiritual guidance from the church, I ask? Or has the state taken over the sphere of responsibility of the church and limited the church to being a philanthropic club?
And in my comment on July 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm, I gave the example of “traditional marriage.” As with abortion, the Christian church has a two-thousand year history of regarding homosexuality as a sin. Far from taking instruction from the church, however, the state is going so far as to consider “gay marriage.” In many countries, and I’ve heard of at least one case in the US, people have been taken to court for discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation.” And what of chaplains in the US army, for example. May they speak out against homosexuality? Or has the state told them they may not?
Lrning -
THAT IS WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING!
The mandate exempts churches. The mandate does not exempt the university or medical facility extensions. The lawsuits filed say that the definition is too narrow and that they are faith based extensions. You obviously agree with them. My very first comment on this entire thread stated essentially that (though I worded it poorly) – the question is, from a legal standpoint, are these entities in question more like the entities that are exempt, or more like those that aren’t exempt.
I’m not Catholic. I don’t believe that if I I’m in a large insurance pool and one of those people from the insurance pool does something immoral (and I don’t believe all birth control is immoral) – I don’t believe that is sinning. So quite frankly, I don’t see how my free exercise of religion would be shut down.
Now, this whole time, I haven’t said that Obama is right, or the Catholics are right. I’m just saying that this debate isn’t, in my view, Obama going out to shut down free exercise of religion. Again, churches are exempted. And like already exists in many states, the outreach arms are not exempt.
Jon
The birth control mandate is already exempt for churches – which is what I stated when I said “build your case”. I don’t think there’s a question about this – churches aren’t mandated to cover birth control if they don’t want to.
In your paragraph about schools, again, churches aren’t having their free exercise of religion controlled here.
And on homosexuality, again – where has there been any crackdown on the free exercise of religion for a church?
I don’t believe that if I I’m in a large insurance pool and one of those people from the insurance pool does something immoral – I don’t believe that is sinning.
I don’t believe that is sinning either, and your example has nothing to do with what this debate is about. Perhaps you genuinely don’t understand, but it’s comments like this that make me think you’re being purposefully obtuse.
I’m just saying that this debate isn’t, in my view, Obama going out to shut down free exercise of religion.
No, he won’t shut down ALL free exercise of religion. Only SOME free exercise of religion. For SOME groups/individuals. And that is unacceptable. And will hopefully be found to be unconstitutional.
And like already exists in many states, the outreach arms are not exempt.
Nothing like this HHS mandate exists in any state because even when states have narrow religious exemptions that Catholic institutions do not meet, states have “loopholes” that allow Catholics a way to NOT VIOLATE their faith, such as self-insuring, not providing health insurance at all, or not providing prescription drug coverage.
Ex-GOP, are you being a jerk? I am referring to the shrinking of the church’s sphere of influence and the expansion of the state’s in violation of the separation of church and state. The church is an authority just as much as the state; they just have different spheres of responsibility.
In intruding into my life to control my body, the state is riding rough-shod over the authority of the Roman Catholic church with regard to contraception. It is saying that organizations which choose to identify with the Roman Catholic church and are so recognized by the Roman Catholic church must provide contraceptives (which today also include abortifacients, but that’s another story).
So on the one hand, the Roman Catholic church says that taking contraceptives is wrong. On the other hand (because of state interference), it offers me free contraceptives if I work in one of their hospitals. Get real!
You are so much like the religious teachers of Jesus’ day, ignoring the spirit of the law and seeing only the letter. The U.S. Supreme Court can rationalize any law to mean anything, even its opposite, as the recent Obamatax ruling showed.
Ex-GOP, why do you think that free exercise of religion applies only to churches and not individuals? Don’t you believe that you have the right to freely exercise your religion?
Again: What if God placed on your heart a passion for helping the poor and called you to start an organization devoted to that holy work? Then the government mandated that as part of running that organization devoted to holy work, you had to VIOLATE your faith? You wouldn’t see that as trampling your free exercise of religion?
the question is, from a legal standpoint, are these entities in question more like the entities that are exempt, or more like those that aren’t exempt.
No, the question, from a legal standpoint, is does the HHS mandate restrict the free exercise of religion.
lol
Jon -
And again, while I can buy your argument that the sphere of influence is shrinking, I don’t see how my or your exercise of religion is being infringed upon.
I host a Bible study at my house every week – haven’t had a crackdown. Our church meets in a public school. I pray whenever I want at work. I read my Bible whenever I want.
Lrning -
I’m not aware any of the lawsuits that have been filed are saying that the problem with the mandate is in regards to individuals – I don’t of any John Doe vs lawsuits – everything that has been filed, that I’ve seen, states that the ruling of what is a church vs what is not is too narrow.
I most certainly say that free exercise of religion can be infringed upon by the government. I think, for instance, that if the government said that a medical facility I worked at HAD to perform abortions, that would be an issue.
I just don’t buy the argument that if somebody else receives contraception through an insurance plan that I happen to be a part of – I don’t see that as sinning. All month long I spend money at businesses, and have no control of what that company does with the money, or the employees do with the money.
I’m just not aware of any of the lawsuits filed from individuals – if there has been, let me know.
Lrning
Your statement on the states is factually incorrect. Many Catholic organizations have had plans that offer contraception because of state mandates, and have had them for years. A quick google search finds a lot of articles.
For instance, in New York – Baker Victory Services, Catholic Charities of Buffalo, and St. Bonaventure University have been providing coverage for a decade:
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article727121.ece
Romney as well put in a plan in Massachusetts with no exemptions for extensions of the church- signed it into law in 2002.
Ex-GOP: I just don’t buy the argument that if somebody else receives contraception through an insurance plan that I happen to be a part of – I don’t see that as sinning.
That’s nice, but no one is making that argument. Did you read where I wrote: “I don’t believe that is sinning either, and your example has nothing to do with what this debate is about.”
EX-GOP: I’m just not aware of any of the lawsuits filed from individuals – if there has been, let me know.
http://charismanews.com/us/33025-businessman-sues-government-for-religious-violation
EX-GOP: Your statement on the states is factually incorrect. Many Catholic organizations have had plans that offer contraception because of state mandates, and have had them for years.
Please link to the state law that requires contraception & sterilization coverage AND does not allow an organization to avoid that requirement through self-insuring, choosing not to provide health coverage, or choosing not to provide prescription drug coverage. Re-read my statement. I never said every Catholic organization took advantage of these “loopholes”.
Lrning
– K – we agree then on point one.
– On point two – the individual is still suing because he employs people – he isn’t stating that as an individual, he is in an employer plan that is in a general pool. He’s essentially making the same case a a catholic charity.
– On point three – it appears that there are a handful of states that equal the feds – the article says some states do have workarounds – not sure if any of those states are the same as the ones with rules like the feds – here is the article
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1
At the very end of the article there’s a link to a Hawaii work around that might be the acceptable compromise. It seems like at this point, they just need to figure out an acceptable accounting shell game.
– On point two – the individual is still suing because he employs people – he isn’t stating that as an individual, he is in an employer plan that is in a general pool. He’s essentially making the same case a a catholic charity.
He is an individual that employs people and he is suing as an individual, not as part of a religious organization. His free exercise of religion is being trampled by the mandate. It really seems that you have profound misunderstandings about all aspects of the HHS mandate debate. I’m simply perplexed by your inability to grasp the issue.
– On point three – it appears that there are a handful of states that equal the feds –
No. There is no state that requires contraception and sterilization to be covered in ALL insurance plans. Having a religious exemption worded the same way as the HHS mandate and requiring ALL plans to offer contraception and sterilization are two different things. Please link to the state law that imposes the same requirements as the HHS mandate.
It seems like at this point, they just need to figure out an acceptable accounting shell game.
No. At this point, they need to figure out a way to maintain the religious freedom of organizations and individuals.
Ex-GOP, I just wanted to point out that, I’m glad *you* haven’t noticed a crackdown, but those 4 things you mention? All have had a ‘crackdown’ recently. Public schools in NY (as well as other places) have recently stopped renting to churches. When some churches have sued to regain this right they have either lost or, having won, the public schools stopped renting to *anyone* to avoid renting to churches. At least 2 couples in the last few months have been fined hundreds and even thousands of dollars by the city and told their weekly Bible studies are illegal gatherings. One won a lawsuit and the city was forced to leave them alone, another in AZ is still pending. People, especially children and pastors, have been told they are not allowed to read their Bibles in public and threatened with suspention, expulsion, or arrest if they continued. Both children in public schools and adults in private workforces have been told they are not allowed to pray at school/work. Pastors have been arrested, threatened with arrest, fined, or expelled from public places for praying out loud. In many instances pastors or other speakers at public events have been told they may not pray, mention the name of Jesus, or dedicate act or speech to God. Now several of these have resulted in lawsuits which were favorably decided towards the defendant, but other restrictions remain in place/haven’t been successfully challenged.
If you don’t think there has been a serious crackdown on private citizens, organizations, and churches on the religious freedom front you haven’t been paying attention. And, for better or worse, you’ve been lucky enough to not incounter it yourself. I have, repeatedly. I’ve been told to ‘shut up and sit down, we don’t talk about that here’ when I mentioned my ethics were controlled by God during a classtime exercise on exploring personal ethics, threated with being flunked out of class and expelled for voicing a Biblical viewpoint on homosexuality, removed from class on more than one occassion for bringing up applicable scientific objections to what was being taught as fact, denied a high school diploma (technically I graduated from the state, not my high school) because I refused to take a highly offensive ‘mandatory’ class and they refused any form of accomodation (including the offer to replace it, at my own expense with a college level credit), and been censored at my work for putting out Christian literature on the ‘free libaray’ table at work (I called them out on that, everyone else was allowed to put out whatever literature they wanted, they backed off when I handed them applicable law)
Lrning – this ongoing “oh my, I really overestimate your intelligence…it startles me how stupid you are….” is getting old. If you insist on pretending you are some wise old person talking to a 12 year old, then I’d like to move on.
We’re talking about the same thing – I just am saying a lawsuit filed by an individual – an individual who isn’t a business owner and suing on behalf of their business. That is what this man is doing – he isn’t an individual harmed by his employer – he is the employer. I apologize if I confused you in what I was making a point on earlier. This man though has the right to sue, and hopefully he has deep pockets because he’ll most likely lose (the government has set forth regulations like this for years and the supremes have let these laws stand).
You are looking for a trap here with the state – and I’m not going to bite. You don’t truly believe the feds one is worse and that the states mandates are good and acceptable do you? Or do you actually believe that if the feds simply mirrored an existing state plan, you (and all catholics) would be a-okay with it?
Jespren -
I think we should truly keep our eyes out for anything that infringes on our right to worship – I truly believe that.
I think the New York situation isn’t a good one – I’ll agree on that.
But I will say two quick points:
1) A lot of these stories are much more than meets the eye. Do a little reading on that “pastor” in Arizona and get back to me – the story goes back about five years, so there’s a lot on it.
2) I don’t believe free exercise of religion means that you won’t face opposition in life, especially depending on how you exercise that religion. For instance, on your last example – most businesses of any size is going to, and has the right to, limit your speech while you are on the job. You freely have the right to leave, and you freely have the right to pray in your head all day long while you work. But not being able to pas out literature – I don’t know many businesses that would be okay with that.
Ex-GOP, legally, if one person is allowed to pass out literature, then all are. It’s called ‘viewpoint discrimination’, you can’t limit one person’s right to do the exact same as another person because you don’t like what they believe. In my specific work situation someone had asked if they could put a box and a small table in the breakroom for people to bring in books and magazines to freely share. It was okayed. People put out everything from old issues of People magazines to soft-porno romance (what my grandma would call ‘bosom rippers’ because they inevitably have a picture of a woman with her shirt half open on front). There were a lot of random books and magazines. No one objected even though several were clearly in the ‘R’ rating type of books for either sex or violence (gory horror was there too). I put a couple of VOM magazines into the pile (Voice of the Martyrs, highlights Christians in forgien countries where Christianity is officiall suppressed or illegal primarily) it was neither graphic nor prostylizing, (no gory pics of beheaded individuals or anything and it called for prayers for people but did not present the gospel to it’s readers in any particular fashion, wasn’t the point of the periodical). It was returned to me with a note that such literature was not allowed. I emailed HR applicable Oregon labor law on relgious freedom and viewpoint discrimination and listed some of the other books that were allowed to be shared, took them less than 24 hours to apologize and admit they couldn’t legally tell me not to put out the magazine if they were going to allow the table and stated that I was allowed to place whatever books or magazines I wanted to the book table, just like everyone else.
Free exercise of religion of course doesn’t mean you won’t face opposition. God promises us opposition if we are following Him. But we live in America, and when opposition to our rightfully expressed religion is taken to an illegal level we have a right, indeed even a duty, to stand for our Consitutional rights.
Btw, the Fed one is WAY worse than a state one. The States have a Consitutional right to pass such restrictions, regulations, and mandates. If people don’t like them they have ways of addressing that or they may move to a different state. The Federal government, on the other hand, DOES NOT have a Constitutional right to force such restrictions, regulations, or mandates upon the general public. What they are doing would be perfectly legal if they were Maine or Alaska, but the Constitution gives very limited and defined powers to the federal government, they are NOT the same as a state.
Hi Jespren,
What is being lost in this discussion, and what you so well point out, is that the president has no Constitutional authority to issue mandates concerning religious issues.
The majority of Americans support electricity, but that would not justify the president declaring the Amish must wire their homes and businesses. I would challenge anyone on this blog to show where church sponsored laws are denying anyone their contraception.
Also, as I pointed out from day 1, Obama is never going to back down. Even if Catholic leaders win in court, mark my words that Obama will find a way to weasel around any court ruling. This is not a man who will ever graciously accept “defeat”.
On June 30th Ex-RINO’s takeaway from the Obamnocare decision:
“I simply wouldn’t call it a middle class tax hike.”
So I post about our itemized health care deductions for prescriptions and medical care being taken away by Obamnocare. And I state many more tax hikes will be kicking in soon after the election. Starting in 2014, individuals who do not buy insurance and who aren’t exempt from the mandate (say, for cases of hardship or religious belief) will have to pay an annual penalty of at least $95 for an individual in 2014, rising to $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. And the CBO projects 76% of households paying these taxes will be middle class or lower.
But you Ex-RINO are somehow able to disregard it and continue posting that Obamnocare is not a middle class tax hike. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a genuine person but you show almost no ability to comprehend what is posted to you. At this point I really think you are just a fraud because nobody could be that obtuse.
Ex-RINO,
I hear the IRS has thirteen thousand pages of tax regulation regarding Obamnocare written already and they are just getting started. And all the while people like you and Nancy Pelosi won’t even admit that Obamnocare is a tax. It must take brutal “elasticity of thought” to bend your mind so far that you can have a discussion about the mandate and continue to deny it is a tax.
You are looking for a trap here with the state – and I’m not going to bite. You don’t truly believe the feds one is worse and that the states mandates are good and acceptable do you?
Ex-RINO, paranoid much?
truth – I’m sorry, I don’t read your posts anymore (except a quick glance to see if it is an apology).
I’m not going to debate with somebody that calls me a liar and isn’t man enough to apologize when proven otherwise. It is best if we move on from each other.
Hi TS,
Didn’t the Democrat Governor of Maine refer to the IRS as “the new gestapo” in reference to Obamacare? Of course he retracted, likely after a visit to the woodshed previously visited by Mayor Corey Booker.
Mary,
The IRS was hated enough when they collected taxes from people’s earnings. Now they are coming after people to collect money cause they choose not to carry an Obamnocare compliant health care policy. They will be liked even less for that. And the Democratic party will be rightfully tied to people’s ire when the tax man comes to collect.
Hi TS,
I can remember when Mayor Booker “clarified” his criticism of Obama. The only things missing in the video were a gun to his head and a newspaper proving the date and day.
Looks like the Gestapo is already here and keeping Democrats in line.
Truthseeker, please, you don’t give the MSM enough credit, by the time April 15th rolls around those ‘taxes’ will be the fault of the Conservative Right and anyone saying it’s the Democrats fault will be lambasted as a conspiritorial Rightwing nutcase.
I’ve already heard spindoctors trying to pin the problems with Obamacare on Conservatives who sandbagged those kindhearted Democrats who were attempting to pass a truly ‘free’ single-payer, government-sponsored healthcare and instead forced them to cut corners and bargain away all the ‘good’ stuff in favor of a ‘bipartisan’ bill which is failing to live up to the Democrats dream. Yes, liberal talking heads blaming Republicans, who didn’t even vote for Obamacare, for the unpopularity of the law. Given ’em a couple of months to come to terms with the Court relabling the unconstitutioal mandate as a tax and Conservatives will be blamed for that too.
Jespren,
The MSM will spin but Obama will look you in the eye and tell you today he is Christian but then the next day Obama will be at a Planned Parenthood campaign rally mocking the Bible. Mary is correct in warning people not to underestimate Obama’s voracity.
An American citizen who works a job w/o health care is now an Obamnocare indentured servant to the federal government. But if same person stays in poverty they get health care free. They are trying to break the backs of the hard working underclass and force them into dependence on government.
Ex-GOP wrote, “And again, while I can buy your argument that the sphere of influence is shrinking, I don’t see how my or your exercise of religion is being infringed upon.”
I was wrong to accept or tolerate your premise that we’re talking about churches when we talk about the “free exercise of religion.” As Lrning pointed out to you, we’re talking about individuals with regard to this phrase, not to churches.
If you go back to my first comment on this post, I was actually responding to your response to Barb. You told her, ”Nothing is being forced on catholic churches.” As I have pointed out, you are wrong.
Hi TS,
Obama’s latest ploy is his supposed championship of cutting taxes for the 98% and going after the rich. A lot of theatrics and little else. Like his lip service to gay marriage.
The lame brain media was orgasmic over his “support” of gay marriage. Uh folks, now that you’ve recovered from your hangover, do you realize this guy just sweet talked you….again?
Obama is superficial. He “stands” for what will benefit him. He calculating and we underestimate him at our own peril.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-339789-one-catholic.html
Obama goes Henry VIII on the church
by Mark Steyn
published Feb. 10, 2012
updated Feb. 16, 2012 3:51 p.m.
Announcing his support for Commissar Sebelius’ edicts on contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion, that noted theologian the Most Reverend Al Sharpton explained: “If we are going to have a separation of church and state, we’re going to have a separation of church and state.”
Thanks for clarifying that. The church model the young American state wished to separate from was that of the British monarch, who remains to this day Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This convenient arrangement dates from the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The title of the law gives you the general upshot, but, just in case you’re a bit slow on the uptake, the text proclaims “the King’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England.” That’s to say, the sovereign is “the only supreme head on earth of the Church” and he shall enjoy “all honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity,” not to mention His Majesty “shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be.”
Welcome to Obamacare.
The president of the United States has decided to go Henry VIII on the Church’s medieval ass. Whatever religious institutions might profess to believe in the matter of “women’s health,” their pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities and immunities are now subordinate to a one-and-only supreme head on earth determined to repress, redress, restrain and amend their heresies. One wouldn’t wish to overextend the analogy: For one thing, the Catholic Church in America has been pathetically accommodating of Beltway bigwigs’ ravenous appetite for marital annulments in a way that Pope Clement VII was disinclined to be vis-a-vis the English king and Catherine of Aragon. But where’d all the pandering get them? In essence, President Obama has embarked on the same usurpation of church authority as Henry VIII: as his Friday morning faux-compromise confirms, the continued existence of a “faith-based institution” depends on submission to the doctrinal supremacy of the state.
“We will soon learn,” wrote Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “just how much faith is left in faith-based institutions.” Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s vicar on earth, has sportingly offered to maintain religious liberty for those institutions engaged in explicit religious instruction to a largely believing clientele. So we’re not talking about mandatory condom dispensers next to the pulpit at St. Pat’s – not yet. But that is not what it means to be a Christian: The mission of a Catholic hospital is to minister to the sick. When a guy shows up in Emergency, bleeding all over the floor, the nurse does not first establish whether he is Episcopalian or Muslim; when an indigent is in line at the soup kitchen the volunteer does not pause the ladle until she has determined whether he is a card-carrying Papist. The government has redefined religion as equivalent to your Sunday best: You can take it out for an hour to go to church, but you gotta mothball it in the closet the rest of the week. So Catholic institutions cannot comply with Commissar Sebelius and still be in any meaningful sense Catholic.
If you’re an atheist or one of America’s ever more lapsed Catholics, you’re probably shrugging: what’s the big deal? But the new Act of Supremacy doesn’t stop with religious institutions. As Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, put it: “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by this mandate.” And so would any of his burrito boys who object to being forced to make “health care” arrangements at odds with their conscience.
None of this should come as a surprise. As Philip Klein pointed out in the American Spectator two years ago, the Obamacare bill contained 700 references to the Secretary “shall,” another 200 to the Secretary “may,” and 139 to the Secretary “determines.” So the Secretary may and shall determine pretty much anything she wants, as the Obamaphile rubes among the Catholic hierarchy are belatedly discovering. His Majesty King Barack “shall have full power and authority to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities whatsoever they be.” In my latest book, I cite my personal favorite among the epic sweep of Commissar Sebelius’ jurisdictional authority:
“The Secretary shall develop oral healthcare components that shall include tooth-level surveillance.”
Before Obama’s Act of Supremacy did the English language ever have need for such a phrase? “Tooth-level surveillance”: From the Declaration of Independence to dentured servitude in a mere quarter-millennium.
Henry VIII lacked the technological wherewithal to conduct tooth-level surveillance. In my friskier days, I dated a girl from an eminent English Catholic family whose ancestral home, like many of the period, had a priest’s hiding hole built into the wall behind an upstairs fireplace. These were a last desperate refuge for clerics who declined to subordinate their conscience to state authority. In my time, we liked to go in there and make out. Bit of a squeeze, but it all adds to the fun – as long as you don’t have to spend weeks, months and years back there. In an age of tooth-level surveillance, tyranny is subtler, incremental but eminently enforceable: regulatory penalties, denial of licenses, frozen bank accounts. Will the Church muster the will to resist? Or (as Archbishop Dolan’s pitifully naďve remarks suggest) will this merely be one more faint bleat lost in what Matthew Arnold called the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of the Sea of Faith?
In England, those who dissented from the strictures of the state church came to be known as Nonconformists. That’s a good way of looking at it: The English Parliament passed various “Acts of Uniformity.” Why? Because they could. Obamacare, which governmentalizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy and microregulates both body and conscience, is the ultimate Act of Uniformity. Is there anyone who needs contraception who can’t get it? Taxpayers give half-a-billion dollars to Planned Parenthood, which shovels out IUDs like aspirin. Colleges hand out free condoms, and the Washington Post quotes middle-aged student “T Squalls, 30” approving his university’s decision to upgrade to the Trojan “super-size Magnum.”
But there’s still one or two Nonconformists out there, and they have to be forced into ideological compliance. “Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment,” Melinda Henneberger of the Washington Post offered to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. At the National Press Club, young Catholics argued that the overwhelming majority of their co-religionists disregard the Church’s teachings on contraception, so let’s bring the vox Dei into alignment with the vox populi. Get with the program, get with the Act of Uniformity.
The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius and many others believe in one-size-fits all national government – uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment – and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.
Hi on,
Thank you for the outstanding article. Mark Steyn is great.
Where is seperation of church state when those carnival barkers “The Most Reverend” Al Sharpton and his sidekick “The Most Prima Donna” Jesse Jackson are forever gracing ua with their presence in the politics of this country? His Prima Donnaship was in Wisconsin rallying for Tom Barrett. Imagine the reaction if Pat Robertson had been leading the charge for Gov. Walker.
After getting caught romping with the WH staff, a “repentent” Billy(goat)Clinton, in a performance worthy of an Oscar, had Jackson come to the White House as his “spiritual advisor”. No one knew at the time the “aide” accompanying the good reverend was his pregnant mistress. You can’t make this stuff up.
The lame brain media was orgasmic over his “support” of gay marriage. Uh folks, now that you’ve recovered from your hangover, do you realize this guy just sweet talked you….again?
Mary, even more striking is Obama’s audacity in flaunting his oath of office by picking and choosing which laws his DOJ should enforce based upon political expediency. Unlike Justice Roberts, Obama has no respect for Congress and/or the rule of law.
Ex-GOP – We’re talking about the same thing – I just am saying a lawsuit filed by an individual – an individual who isn’t a business owner and suing on behalf of their business. That is what this man is doing – he isn’t an individual harmed by his employer – he is the employer.
I’m not sure why you think that when someone runs a business they cease to be an individual with rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. This man is not suing “on behalf of” his business. He is suing because as an individual who is an employer, the HHS mandate tramples his religious freedom. His religious freedom, not the religious freedom of his business.
Ex-GOP – You don’t truly believe the feds one is worse and that the states mandates are good and acceptable do you? Or do you actually believe that if the feds simply mirrored an existing state plan, you (and all catholics) would be a-okay with it?
I truly believe that the HHS mandate is the most radical contraceptive mandate in the country with an unparalleled level of infringement on religious freedom. I don’t believe states should mandate coverage of contraception and sterilization either. However, there is probably an existing state plan that allows for freedom of religion and conscience and would be acceptable.
Ex-GOP – “… then I’d like to move on.”
This is probably the best course of action. I am finding myself less and less able to be charitable towards you. We have had “conversations” regarding this issue going back months here, volumes have been written about how the HHS mandate is an attack on religious freedom elsewhere, and yet you continually misstate the issue and pretend that this is not a very real crisis for Catholics that wish to live their faith.
It also hasn’t escaped my notice that twice now you have avoided addressing this: What if God placed on your heart a passion for helping the poor and called you to start an organization devoted to that holy work? Then the government mandated that as part of running that organization devoted to holy work, you had to VIOLATE your faith? You wouldn’t see that as trampling your free exercise of religion?
I hold out no hope that you are willing to put in whatever reading/time/thought is necessary to understand this issue. But I will continue to address errors and misstatements in your posts for the benefit of others that may be reading.
Lrning -
All I meant by the individual vs the business – is I’ve not seen a non-business owner sue and say that they feel wronged that they are part of a work insurance plan that covers contraception. That’s all I meant by that.
I understand the mandate quite well. I also understand that mandates have been in place all over the country for years, and though not as strong as this one, they have contained elements that rile up Catholics. This is not a new debate, except that this is at the federal level.
I understand that Catholics feel wronged. I do believe though that to a certain extent, this has become more political than reasonable. That is my opinion. At this point, a plan was presented that the plans paid for by the institution did not include contraception coverage – and a work around was put in place for employees. It was acceptable to some catholics – not acceptable to others.
As a non-catholic Christian, while I respect the rights of Catholics to be upset about anything they feel infringes on their rights, I simply don’t agree with them – I just don’t agree that one is either sinner, or having their free exercise of religion compromised if they pay money towards a plan that involves something that they think is wrong, yet they don’t have to partake in it…but others might (who think it is okay).
If I felt like I truly did have to violate my faith, yes I would have an issue with it – but I don’t see how it is trampling my free exercise of religion. I pay taxes right now and the government has used that for death penalty cases (state and federal level), as well as torture (at the federal level). As a Christian, I personally don’t agree with either one. However, I don’t see how my ability to pray, give money, worship, read the Bible, or any other fundamental aspects of my faith are being compromised.
I can see how I could get overly sensitive and try to make the case – but since you asked about my personal opinion – I don’t personally believe that everything that might make me upset as a Christian means that might rights to freely exercise are being compromised. That’s just me.
Oh, yay! More misstatement of the issue! How fun and unexpected.
Lrning,
On a previous thread Ex-RINO said he believes abortion is murder. Yet he tells you it does not violate his religious beliefs that Obamnocare mandates that his health insurance policy must include coverage of abortificients (murder of his daughters child) for his daughters. He is sick. He has a mal-formed conscience. Or he is a paid Obama campaign hack here to spread lies and hope nobody calls him on it.
He’s somethin’ all right.
I especially like this gem: “I respect the rights of Catholics to be upset about anything they feel infringes on their rights”. Not *I respect the rights of Catholics to freely practice their faith*. He respects our right to get upset over a mandate that infringes on our religious freedom, but because he doesn’t agree with that particular tenet of the faith, meh, it’s no biggie. Just “politics”. Awesome.
And this one is great too: “If I felt like I truly did have to violate my faith, yes I would have an issue with it – but I don’t see how it is trampling my free exercise of religion.” How can a government mandate that requires people to violate their faith NOT be a trampling of religious freedom?
Lrning, he says abortion is murder but the government mandating he get his daughter insurance that cover abortificients for free doesn’t violate his conscience. Wouldn’t that mean government subsidizing the murder of children doesn’t violate his conscience? He told me that it doesn’t violate his conscience because Jesus won’t hold him responsible for the actions of the politicians he puts in office because they win by more than one vote. He is something all right. lol
I am not a psychologist but isn’t there a term to describe people who avoid taking responsibility by telling themselves they are just one of the crowd?
Lrning
Are you looking for a response from me on your 7pm post? You didn’t address it to me, so I’m not sure.
I don’t want to trample on your free exercise to slander and gossip another. :-)
Ex-RINO, I do not have the same lack of conscience as you and it is frustrating so I am looking for help analyzing you psychologically. You assuage your guilt for voting for Democrats by saying they win by more then one vote anyway so your vote doesn’t make any difference. Isn’t there a term to describe people who avoid taking responsibility by telling themselves they are just one of the crowd?
truth -
I do know a term for people who avoid taking responsibility when they’ve called somebody a liar and then were proven false.
That term is ‘truthseeker’.
Are you looking for a response from me on your 7pm post?
No. But if you feel I misunderstood your position, feel free to clarify.
“In a mass, men feel no guilt, no shame. The blood of a hundred thousand innocents might drip from their hands as from a leaky faucet, but the mass asks no questions and feels neither guilt nor shame. It sees no need to apologize and senses no danger of retribution, neither from man nor from God himself. Such is always the nature of a public spectacle; the crowd can no more fear for its soul than a pebble can yearn for the beach.”
Lrning -
Here’s the core of my disagreement, and I understand your position and I respect it.
I love the Lord and am born again – I pray, read the Bible, worship – these are all core aspects of my faith. If the government didn’t let me go to church – or outlawed praying – anything like that, I definitely feel that my right to worship would be trampled on.
Just because something offends me though doesn’t mean I feel that my right to freely worship is being infringed upon. Like on the DP – I don’t like that my money goes towards that, and as a Christian, when/if I had the opportunity (it is a fringe issue and doesn’t come up for votes), I would stand against it – but I don’t feel like my right to free expression of religion is threatened because of it.
That’s where I see the difference.
Your “disagreement” might be valid, if:
1) Catholics were simply “offended” by contraception
2) The First Amendment guarantee was limited to freedom of “worship”
“I understand your position”
Clearly, you do not. Apparently the sum total of the tenets of your faith require you to “pray, read the Bible, worship”. Apparently this prevents you from understanding that other religions require MUCH more from their faithful. Apparently this prevents you from acknowledging that free exercise of religion is trampled when the government requires the faithful of another religion to act against the tenets of their faith.
Diffusion of responsibility is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for an action or inaction when others are present. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that either others are responsible for taking action or have already done so.The phenomenon tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size and when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. It rarely occurs when the person is alone and diffusion increases with groups of three or more
Okay Lrning – pretend that I’m in 5th grade here.
How would in impact my relationship with the God of the Bible if I were part of a health plan which offered contraceptions, and somebody else than used contraception?
How is that infringing on my first amendment rights?
Interesting constitutional look at it and some of the cases from the past:
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/02/constitution-check-does-mandated-birth-control-insurance-violate-religious-freedom/
Oh, for the love of God. I really have to stop reading your posts.
Ex-GOP says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:01 am
I’m not Catholic. I don’t believe that if I I’m in a large insurance pool and one of those people from the insurance pool does something immoral (and I don’t believe all birth control is immoral) – I don’t believe that is sinning.
Lrning says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:27 am
I don’t believe that is sinning either, and your example has nothing to do with what this debate is about.
Ex-GOP says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm
I just don’t buy the argument that if somebody else receives contraception through an insurance plan that I happen to be a part of – I don’t see that as sinning.
Lrning says:
July 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm
That’s nice, but no one is making that argument. Did you read where I wrote: “I don’t believe that is sinning either, and your example has nothing to do with what this debate is about.”
Ex-GOP says:
July 14, 2012 at 2:01 pm
– K – we agree then on point one.
Ex-GOP says:
July 15, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Okay Lrning – pretend that I’m in 5th grade here.
How would in impact my relationship with the God of the Bible if I were part of a health plan which offered contraceptions, and somebody else than used contraception?
Seriously?
I never actually called you a liar. I spoke of the elasticity of your mind and your tendency to misrepresent the facts. And you said that I called you a liar. Look at how you weaseled out of this discussion about unions getting Obamnocare waivers by bringing up NBA stars.
*****
truth – Cadillac health insurance plan – $27.5K family plans get taxed…again, not something the middle class is going to get hit on.
Ex-RINO, If that is the case then why did the unions lobby behinds closed dorrs to get exemptions from Obama in order to avoid this tax then? Or do you consider the unions to to upper class?
truth – I should have said the majority of those on cadillac plans are upper class – unions do cover all spectrums. For instance, NBA players are part of a union.
Ex_RINO, over 50% of all Obamacare waivers granted were granted to union members. Over 500.000 union employes. And when Trumpka visited the white house to get his waivers he wasn’t there representing the NBA was he? Since you brought it up do you have any idea how many of those hundreds of thousands of exemptions were give to NBA stars?
truth – They aren’t waivers of the law – they are allowing companies/unions to opt out of certain provisions during the phase in period.
****
Your refusal to just debate honestly and admit that blue collar and lower wage union jobs were the bulk of waivers granted makes me think you are disingenuous. Why would anybody waste there time with somebody who acts that obtuse? But I never did call you a liar…though I think you deceive even yourself.
Oh, for the love of God. I really have to stop reading your posts.
Ex-GOP says:
I’m not Catholic. I don’t believe that if I I’m in a large insurance pool and one of those people from the insurance pool does something immoral (and I don’t believe all birth control is immoral) – I don’t believe that is sinning.
Lrning says:
I don’t believe that is sinning either, and your example has nothing to do with what this debate is about.
Ex-GOP says:
I just don’t buy the argument that if somebody else receives contraception through an insurance plan that I happen to be a part of – I don’t see that as sinning.
Lrning says:
That’s nice, but no one is making that argument. Did you read where I wrote: “I don’t believe that is sinning either, and your example has nothing to do with what this debate is about.”
Ex-GOP says:
– K – we agree then on point one.
Ex-GOP says:
Okay Lrning – pretend that I’m in 5th grade here.
How would in impact my relationship with the God of the Bible if I were part of a health plan which offered contraceptions, and somebody else than used contraception?
Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Sorry for the confusion Lrning – I know you had said you don’t believe it to be sinful – but your offense to the plan had me wondering if you were playing devil’s advocate, or if you were truly offended by it even though you didn’t find it sinful.
Truth – last time I’ll explain it – do with it what you want:
I said you had said something
You said I had a “flexible” memory – specifically about that post – you quoted it – and you had not said that
I posted examples otherwise.
Ex-GOP, I think I may be able to explain things a bit more understandably (no offense meant to Truthseeker).
I am not a Catholich I am a Biblical Christian. I am, quite obviously, against all forms of abortion. Frankly, I have no idea if my current insurance plan covers abortion, it does not impact my personal decision to accept insurance coverage (although if I had a choice I would choose one that did not, I don’t, my choice is *this* insurance or no insurance). If I was an employer, however, it would matter very much what the insurance coverage I was offering my employees entailed. Because, as an employer, I am paying a portion of that insurance thus actively paying for whatever a singular employee does. This is direct, not an indirect pool or a hapstance of funding, but a direct payment of the act.
Think of it in a different situation that contraceptives/abortion/insurance.
You give money to a charity, that money is now their’s and they, in turn, make a poor decision about who to help and the money they give out to help a struggling man buy food for his family gets used to buy drugs. Did you facilitate the drug purchase/use? Well, yes, but indirectly and, while you may not donate to that charity again, you personally are under no sin or harm for that man’s sin of drug use, even if that drug use was only made possible because of the pool of money you contributed to. On the other hand if that same man came to you and said ‘i was going to ask charity X for help, but I thought i’d ask you directly. I need $100 to buy drugs, I only have $20, will you give me the other $80?’ If you give him the money you are directly participating in his sin and taking a portion of that upon yourself. Most people would, very justly, deny this man. Now the government comes in and says you *must* give him the $80. Well, they are trampling on your freedom of religion/ethics. They are forcing you to do something that is directly counter to your beliefs and participate knowingly in a sin.
Employers pay a portion of their employees’s plan fee for insurance. For instance in the job my husband has the employer pays almost 3xs what we do on a monthly basis to provide us insurance. Obviously that rate varies, but an employer sponsored health plan is exactly that, sponored, and therefore subsidized, by the employer. Saying that an employer must provide a coverage plan that covers abortion/contraceptives/sterilization means that employer is being forced to directly fund that option. Nothing is ‘free’, the ‘free’ part just means that the employee, as the end user, is not paying for it. We are not talking about some nebulous pool where money that was at one time yours may or may not go towards an act you consider immoral. We are talking about directly paying to provide a service
(Blasted cell) con.
Provide a service you consider immoral. That is absolutely a violation of freedom of religion. You have brought up the death penalty several times. The mandated coverage here is not like tax dollars which have been given over to the government being used to pay for the death penalty. It is akeen to a government official assigning you a death row inmate and telling you ‘it costs $1000 to execute this man. The state is picking up half the tab. Find an executioner and pay him $500 to execute your assigned criminal or you will be fined $100 for every day he stays alive after his execution date.’ As with the current coverage mandates the state, in that instance, would be forcing you against your beliefs to directly involve yourself in the execution of a criminal, and you would be absolutely correct to cry foul and refuse.
Nicely stated Jespren.
Ex-GOP, I have no idea what this means:
I know you had said you don’t believe it to be sinful – but your offense to the plan had me wondering if you were playing devil’s advocate, or if you were truly offended by it even though you didn’t find it sinful.
Offense to the plan? Do you mean the mandate?
“…
she suddenly is gonna have to bear the burden and the cost of that.
And that’s not fair.”
LOL
Who is this moron? Seriously, there’s no point being charitable when such idiocy is passing itself off as statesmanship.
I’m constantly amazed, though, at how more frequently such remarks appear — things that shouldn’t need commentary to point out their lunacy but apparently do because seeming normal people are able to frame such remarks with no sense at all that they might be preposterous on their face.
EG: “Just because something offends me though doesn’t mean I feel that my right to freely worship is being infringed upon.”
What I’ve understood from your numerous posts on this subject, is that you’re projecting your own sense of infringement onto others. But why would you do that? It’s their faith — not yours — that’s at issue for them.
Something may not infringe your religion in the least, but may well infringe others’. It’s no argument to say that their religion is not being infringed because yours is not.
Do you understand that?
Well said Jespren and rasqual. Thanks for babysitting Ex-RINO. He has fired me as his counselor. But back to the topic at hand. As a Catholic our church gives us a book (the catechism of the Catholic Church) that defines contraception and all types of ‘family reduction services’ as being intrinisically evil. It is written doctrine as a part of our faith and the teaching could not be any clearer. Christian’s of other denominations ,say Baptist, may hold the highest respect for life in the womb and agree with the Catholic church’s teaching on the subject but without the same type authoritative teachings published buy the church to guide their faithful on “life” issues? That is why the Catholic Church is at the forefront here and the that is why the other Christians are standing shoulder to shoulder with them on this issue.
I’m not religious in the least, Ex-RINO, and I can clearly see that people are having their religious convictions violated. You have to be one of the most egocentric individuals I’ve ever encountered. You might as well just hop the fence about abortion, too, since you already are willing to vote for proaborts if it benefits you, and after all, it’s not YOU being harmed or immediately impacted by the practice of prenatal homicide…
Jespren -
I completely understand the mandate. I feel it is more like the DP than you think – money is being made into a giant a pool in which you know some of the spending of it is not going to be considered moral in the eyes of the person paying the money.
The other issue is that Lrning and I had moved past (at least in my mind) the mechanics of the mandate and on to the ill, or how is this law trampling on one’s freedom of religion.
I understand that if something offends me, I suppose it is “infringing on my freedom of religion”.
With some Christians literally dying for their faith though – I feel like it would be a little lame to look them in the eyes and say “Oh yes, we have the same issues here – I mean, I pay money into a pot each money, and that company offers a separate plan to an individual, and that person might get contraception (which a lot of people don’t believe is a sin anyways) – so yeah person actually being persecuted because of your faith – my freedom is getting trampled as well!”
rasqual –
I’ve stated many, many, many times that it is in MY opinion. I’ve stated that people can disagree - and they have, and they will. This is going to go to the courts, which I’ve posted an article on. This has been decided before, which I posted references to. I’ve simply said I don’t agree with those who say they are so gravely harmed – what that not clear before?
xalisae – if I’m sure a terrible, egocentric person in your mind, feel free to pass over my posts and ignore them – I won’t be hurt.
Have a great day.
Lrning
Yes – the redefined mandate – the plan that was put together.
– “I completely understand the mandate. I feel it is more like the DP than you think – money is being made into a giant a pool in which you know some of the spending of it is not going to be considered moral in the eyes of the person paying the money.”
Unless employers are being forced to offer employees a benefits package that includes the death penalty, no, they are not the same. The situation may seem like the DP and taxes to you from an individual employee perspective. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the individual employer perspective? That organizations that exists solely to live out the Gospel (such as Catholic Charities and Catholic hospitals) will have to provide employees something that violates their faith. That organizations that exist solely to evangelize & educate about the Catholic faith (such as EWTN and Relevant Radio) will have to provide employees something that violates the Catholic faith.
– I understand that if something offends me, I suppose it is “infringing on my freedom of religion”.
What does this have to do with being offended? I’m offended by people using the name of the Lord in vain. I’m offended by people letting their dog defecate at the park and not picking it up. Neither of these things infringe on my freedom of religion. Or maybe I just don’t understand how you’re defining the word. What do you mean by “offends” in that sentence?
– With some Christians literally dying for their faith though – I feel like it would be a little lame to look them in the eyes and say “Oh yes, we have the same issues here
Oh, so we need to wait until people are dying before recognizing there’s an infringement of the First Amendment? So when protestors are not allowed to protest, it’s not an infringement of free speech unless someone is killed?
I’ve simply said I don’t agree with those who say they are so gravely harmed – what that not clear before?
Crap. I wish I would have seen the above before I posted my last comment. Nevermind. Don’t bother to respond Ex-GOP. I’m done. You recognize that the free exercise of religion is being trampled for Catholics, but you just don’t care.
Ex-GOP, in reference to your response to me then I think it important to remember we’re Americans, with very specifically defined rights. No one (that I am aware of) is trying to compare the infringement upon our legal rights of conscience with the physical ‘infringement’ found in other countries. Frankly if we lived somewhere without a Constitutionally protected freedom of religion, plus a Constitutionally protected right to redress the government it would be rather obsurd (not to mention very dangerous) for us to protest such. But we ARE Americans, and letting our government get away with taking an inch leads to a mile. It would be like a criminal rights activist shrugging his shoulders and saying ‘well, since lots of countries don’t have Maranda rights it’s not a big deal if a judge rules a reading of Maranda rights is unnecessary if the cop feels it is so. If you give the government an inch they *will* take a mile. Incrimental steps has always been how rights are erased, and if you refuse to take a stand on the ‘small stuff’, pretty soon you will be unable to take a (legal) stand on the big stuff. Standing up and demanding your rights when others are suffering far greater persecution in no way cheapens them, nor does the existance of worse situations cheapen your right to not accept illegal actions of a lesser extent. “Render unto Ceasars that which is Ceasars”, but in America our ‘ceasars’ have limited their power. It is not theirs to demand we ignore our conscience and it is theirs to force compliance against our religions. In Ancient Rome any Roman solider could demand any civilian to carry his military gear for 1 mile, or could demand food and lodging for the night. Surely a first century Christian would find such a thing abhorant, bearing the load that very well may be used to slaughter their brothern. Yet the Bible tells them to obey, it was the legally inacted law of the time, held up through the power and conquested right of Rome as supreme temporal authority. The death penalty, as you like to bring up, is a duly inacted law of the land, the Consitution specifically allows for it and those laws have been long and justly inacted through legal means.you may not like it, you may even have a strong religious objection to it, and as an American you have every right to attempt to change the law. But, as an American, you also live under a rightful authority that justly allows it and you are honor bound by the Bible itself to obey that civil authority insomuch as it does not directly contradict with your personal ability to carry out God’s orders (like if the government tried to forced *you* to be the executioner then you would have several grounds to object and refuse). But this whole insurance mandate is unconstitutional on it’s face, and there are still many legal objections to it withstanding and waiting to be deliberated. And there are quite literally thousands of learned men who have declared this an illegal and unconstitutional law, including AGs and governers of many states. When, and if, this law ever is duly inacted into a Constitutionally inacted law conscienious objectors of all stripes will have two choices, grit their teeth and bare it, or practice civil disobiedence, accepting gracefully all the consequences of that. Just like in other countries pro-life protesters have served hundreds of days of jail for peacefully congregating in front of abortion clinics. Yet in the U.S. if a pro-life activist gets arrested for the exact same thing the, rightfully, sue for false arrest (and almost aways win). Someday they may loose that right and bear just arrest. But the quickest way to make *sure* they loose that right is to not enforce their current rights.
Ex-RINO, in summation:
…Then they came for the Jews,and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew…
You can feel free to just pretend as if I simply passed over the opportunity to highlight your self-serving ignorance. I, however, will not, since it needs to be done.
(*sigh*) EGV, I really don’t quite understand how you, who’ve shown some erudition and learning, could fail so completely to comprehend the very core issue being discussed (which Lrning and others have tried, until blue in the face, to explain to you).
Lrning cut to the chase when she distinguished between freedom of worship and freedom of religion. In mathematical terms, let’s say that W = freedom of worship, and that R = freedom of religion, and that W is a proper subset of R (i.e. R completely includes W, and then some).
First: do you see, appreciate and understand the difference between these two things?
Second: do you see how R (which includes all of W) is, in fact, what’s safeguarded (at least on paper, and in theory, the destructive forays of the Obama administration [et al.] notwithstanding) in the U.S. Constitution? You go on about how W (at least for you) is not being adversely affected… which leads me (and Lrning, etc.) to think that you’ve missed (or dodged) the point, rather handily.
Third: do you see that, if R is ignored/removed/impaired, nothing (save for some sort of mythical “good-will”, on the part of the powers-that-be) could prevent future encroachments against the “W” which you hold so dear (and feel to be so secure)?
Finally: forgive me, friend (and I do remember saying something of the sort, before), but: you have an intractable tendency to refuse to recognise disingenuity when you see it (or–forgive me–use it). When Planned Parenthood indignantly claims that it uses no federal monies for abortions (but that it uses such monies for base expenses, such as heating, lighting, and other things which are not in and of themselves deadly), you nod in approval. When President Obama (and his ilk) claims that religious groups will not be required to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients, sterilisations, etc., but that the insurance companies will need to provide such things free of charge (by means of the money-trees growing in the back-lawns of every insurance company’s corporate headquarters, I imagine), you nod in approval, and you are satisfied. So long as you are content to adopt an utterly minimalist, publicly-neutered clone of Christianity (or any religion) which makes no demands aside from a hyper-privatised hand-ful of requests that one read one’s Bible (for any reason other than to apply it to the world at large), attend worship services of one’s choice (so long as you do not have requirements for membership and behaviour of which the government disapproves), and think happy thoughts about the “great power in the sky” (so long as you don’t trouble anyone else unduly with your ideas), then I’m afraid you’ll never have the foggiest idea what we’re saying to you. You’ll also be rather lost as to the whole point of Christianity, I’m afraid.
If you think that Christianity (and any other phenomenon with which you’re not entirely comfortable when it’s in a more raw, less refined, less bland, and less imposing form) is such that its definition can include as much or as little as you wish, then I’m afraid you’ve emptied the very term “Christianity” of all meaning for yourself, whatsoever.
Lrning -
Just want to correct one thing on your last post – I’m saying Catholics might feel that their free expression of religion is being trampled on – I just don’t agree with that. Just because somebody says that something is happening doesn’t make it true – that’s why they keep working on a compromise plan, and if not, it will go to courts like other things.
I’m just acknowledging that sure, some Catholics say they are being infringed upon – and while I respect their rights to say that, I just don’t agree with them. That’s it.
Jespren -
A few thoughts on your post, which was very well written.
1) In your belief, it is purely unconstitutional. This isn’t the first time a bill like this has gone through the courts – I linked to an article earlier concerning some similar cases.
2) I am no say saying that the Catholic church or others shouldn’t fight this. I’m just saying i don’t agree with them on this subject, and I wouldn’t go as far to say it is a massive injustice and squashing of one’s freedom of religion. To read some articles and reactions on social media sites, you would have thought the government had banned communion or something. That’s all I’m saying.
x-
With all due respect, in the quote that you posted, the “first they came for the Jews” meant that they literally came for them, took them, and killed them.
I don’t believe being a part of an insurance plan that covers something that somebody might take advantage of is quite on the same level as the holocaust.
Paladin
Again, good to hear from you.
I really missed the opening “sigh”. While it is tougher to convey, I stare in amazement at many of your posts and the dancing of the language that you use. It reminds me of an episode of Friends once where Joey had to write a recommendation to an adoption agency and sound fancy, so he wrote it normally, and then using his Microsoft Word Thesaurus, he swapped in the longer word available at any available point. Hi-larious stuff if you’ve never seen the episode.
But on to your post.
I enjoyed it -and I get it – I’ve just never bought the whole “mixing of funds” argument as much as you do. I don’t look behind me when I buy things at Target (which sells contraception and booze), pay taxes (which goes towards the DP), or shop at a number of places that have covered abortions in their plan. I remember, we’ve had this conversation and you try to avoid those places, that that is great. I just feel that if a poor woman in a rural area wants to get medical services (not abortion) at planned parenthood, and the government refunds those services, that I’m not in a position to say that she can’t.
Furthermore, I don’t live out my Christianity that way – I want to lead a Biblical life – I want to lead others to a relationship with Christ – but I don’t feel that is best served by trying to dictate actions of non-believers in society. I just don’t feel we’re better off and I’m more pure in God’s eyes if I fight for non-believers to not be able to use condoms.
Again, I’m not Catholic – and I get that a percentage of you guys interpret your Bible a bit differently in some of these areas, and wish to pass more laws about behaviors of non-Christians.
Also, as to avoid the obvious response – I’m not saying that we should allow anything goes. I’m not saying we should have abortions on every corner, allow shootings, and do whatever. I am saying that people use birth control. A majority of people in the US don’t have an issue with it. A heck of a lot of Christian and Catholics (and I’m not saying they are two separate groups – and I hate that I have to explain every little thing or I’ll get some long rant…heck, I got yelled at because I didn’t capitalize catholic the other day) – have no issue with.
But yes, sue and sue away – fight for the freedoms if you feel that your freedom of religion is being infringed upon. I’m just saying I don’t see it and am not convinced that it is an obvious cut and dry issue as many on this board, including you, seem to think it is.
I’m saying Catholics might feel that their free expression of religion is being trampled on – I just don’t agree with that.
No. Catholics know their free expression of religion is being trampled on. You are in no position to judge whether it is or not. Since you don’t agree that contraception is evil, you cannot even fathom that being mandated to provide free contraception to one’s employees via health care benefits is a violation of one’s faith. I think your problem is you lack empathy and imagination.
I don’t believe being a part of an insurance plan that covers something that somebody might take advantage of is quite on the same level as the holocaust.
Thereby proving once again that you don’t understand the issue.
How can you say that abortion is murder when it has been found that women have a “right” to abortion by the Supreme Court? Surely it cannot be! The decisions of the courts are apparently as sacrosanct as the Bible to you.
and wish to pass more laws about behaviors of non-Christians.
Could you PLEASE just come out and admit that you haven’t a freaking CLUE what this whole HHS mandate debate is all about already! It has become exceedingly painful to read dumb comment after dumb comment proving your ignorance.
Lrning –
Okay Lrning – Richard Trenton Chase believed he was a vampire – does that make him one?
Fine – Catholics know (bolded) that their freedom of religion is being trampled on. If the court rules against them, individuals can drop their health insurance. Catholic facilities can shut down. I don’t know how to argue with that one – I mean, if they just know (bolded) that they are having rights trampled, and we just take anyone’s word for it – well, shucks.
This is great though. I think I’m going to skip paying my taxes this year and say that a nice person named Lrning told me that if I felt my freedom of religion was being trampled, that knowing is good enough – so since I feel that the DP is wrong, and that some of our military invasions have been wrong, I’ll just skip paying my taxes because again, I know (bolded), and that is better than anybody else’s thoughts on it.
Love it – best response yet.
:-)
Isn’t this fun? The learning – the debate – I mean, we don’t get to actually set policy or anything unfortunately, but the freedom to debate this is awesome.
Yes Lrning – sorry – we aren’t actually concerned about any rights of an employee in this argument – they have no rights.
The rights we care about are those of the organizations – the outreaches, and them not having to pay for something that violates their collective faith (which isn’t very collective polls show, but that’s another story).
Yes – I’m sorry to keep talking about individuals. They don’t have rights and aren’t the focus. The charities – yes, the charities.
and we just take anyone’s word for it
Please explain how you can believe that abortion is the same as murder (as you have told us) when the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a woman’s “right”.
I’m sorry to keep talking about individuals. They don’t have rights and aren’t the focus. The charities – yes, the charities.
Please explain how my Catholic dentist ceased being an individual with free exercise of religion and became a “charity” when she opened her business.
Lrning
I personally believe that abortion is murder. Obviously, the government does not.
Again, I’m not saying that anybody needs to take the final word of the government and never do anything else. The government is certainly far from perfect. In the many states where a mandate does exist, I’m sure that there are people who feel that their freedom of religion is being infringed upon regardless of what the courts decided.
That clearer?
On the individuals -
There appear to be three tiers here:
– The charity/organization level. Obviously, we can’t attribute Georgetown University to one person – we see them overall as an entity.
– An individual who owns a business – like what you just described.
– An individual covered by a plan in the two above situations.
In my last rant, I was talking about scenario 3. I thought you were talking about scenario 1. Reread my post though from the standpoint of scenario 3 – that is what I was focusing on.
In my last rant, I was talking about scenario 3. I thought you were talking about scenario 1. Reread my post though from the standpoint of scenario 3 – that is what I was focusing on.
I know Ex-GOP. It’s the only scenario you’ve focused on. Even when I linked to an INDIVIDUAL (scenario 2) that has filed a lawsuit you discounted it because that wasn’t an individual from scenario 3. Apparently you believe business owners shouldn’t have free exercise of religion.
Again, I’m not saying that anybody needs to take the final word of the government and never do anything else.
I must have stepped into the Twilight zone because from where I sit that looks exactly what like you’ve been saying. Catholics only FEEL their rights have been infringed upon! We won’t know for sure until the courts rule, by golly!
Lrning
Okay – some individuals that own businesses might feel like their rights are being infringed on. That better?
The lawsuit says they feel they have been infringed on. Regardless of the ruling, they’ll think they are infringed on. Regardless of the ruling, I don’t think they are. Legally, you are correct though – that is what happens in court cases – they will decide, and legally, that will be the standard.
x-
With all due respect, in the quote that you posted, the “first they came for the Jews” meant that they literally came for them, took them, and killed them.
I don’t believe being a part of an insurance plan that covers something that somebody might take advantage of is quite on the same level as the holocaust.
Do you REALLY think that that was how they kicked off the holocaust? They just got a wild hair to come get some Jews one day? That they didn’t start by doing seemingly innocuous things to them, or even just SAYING bad things about them? And, not just Jews, but other groups as well? History is fun.
Sorry X, but history is boring. It’s revisionist history that’s the fun stuff!
Regardless of the ruling, I don’t think they are.
Because you deny the Catholic Church’s understanding of it’s own teaching. Pope Ex-GOP!
x -
You have full promise that if I ever feel that catholics are going to be rounded up and put in concentration camps to be murdered, I will stand up and fight to the death.
I simply find the comparison to be a little overly dramatic.
Lrning – I’m simply not Catholic so I don’t agree with all of their teachings anyways.
As do a lot of members of the Catholic church.
My only point is, regardless of the legal ruling, not everyone will agree. Is this point controversial?
Your “only point” in all this back and forth was to state the obvious? Gah! What a waste of time.
This is great though. I think I’m going to skip paying my taxes this year and say that a nice person named Lrning told me that if I felt my freedom of religion was being trampled, that knowing is good enough – so since I feel that the DP is wrong, and that some of our military invasions have been wrong, I’ll just skip paying my taxes because again, I know (bolded), and that is better than anybody else’s thoughts on it.
Ex-RINO shows day after day after day that he has no logic to his reasoning and no ability or desire to learn anything new. The crass comment above is just one more example. I have told him over and over that Catholics don’t just think it or say it. It has been documented for centuries as a part of out doctrine of faith. He is such an ignanimous (should be a word if it isn’t) troll.
I simply find the comparison to be a little overly dramatic.
lol.. standing up for centuries of doctrine that teach the intrinsic evil of abortificients is overly dramatic. This coming from the guy who claims abortion is MURDER. I wouldn’t want you standing with me in this fight Ex-RINO. You have no sense and such a malformed conscience that I can be almost certain that you would jump ship as soon as it mattered to me anyway.
EG: “This is going to go to the courts, which I’ve posted an article on. This has been decided before, which I posted references to.“
Pretty selectively, and you still didn’t adequately respond to my question.
Gonzales represents a solid refutation of your claims regarding the applicability of RFRA. Claiming that not citing the most important refutation of your apparent beliefs about how the RFRA has been applied by the courts on the grounds that, after all, you can’t reasonably be expected to cite an exhaustive enumeration of related cases, is ridiculous. It’s the single most important case that denies your claim — not just some tangential, down-the-list trivial addendum.
EG: “You have full promise that if I ever feel that catholics are going to be rounded up and put in concentration camps to be murdered, I will stand up and fight to the death.”
So it’s only at the brink of freedom’s death that some will defend it?
If you get prostate cancer, be sure to wait until you’re at death’s door before seeking treatment, OK? ;-)
rasqual – I apologize from the bottom of my heart that the article I posted to didn’t cite your favorite case.
Are you saying though that I need to go back to a post four months ago to answer a question? Or did I miss a question on this post? Please know, as I’ve stated many times, I have more questions to answer than you folks do – I miss them from time to time. Only with truthseeker is it intentional.
On your second question – I’m learning from the anti health care crowd – we’re fine giving coverage when people are on the brink of death- we just don’t want them covered while it is not life threatening. I mean, where is the fun in that?!?
And anyway, folks, the problem is that as government’s reach grows, freedoms — including religious ones — shrink. Where government advances, religion must retreat. Citizens’ discretion must bow to government mandates.
Again, folks: What is not forbidden is mandated. A totalism, with the middle ground of free exercise squeezed of its vital role in society, animating mediating institutions that counter-weigh against state power.
Tyranny doesn’t come by one act of a despot, it creeps by increments. So the question is simple: is government growing in areas of our lives it penetrates? Or is government’s role shrinking?
The answer is all one needs to know whether we’re closing in on, or distancing ourselves from, totalism. EG, I think you’d simply say “the trend will stop before wildly bad things happen.” Why would you think that? Blind faith that a government that does evil things even with what little power it has surely won’t do grossly more evil things once those with power have even more power? Are you denying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? It seems to me that the implicit denial of the aphorism is evidence that we’ve become the kind of citizenry who would, indeed, let such things come to pass.
EG: “Are you saying though that I need to go back to a post four months ago to answer a question?”
No, but since you raised the four-month-old issue of what you posted, it’s fair game to resurrect the inadequacy of your remarks.
I’m saying that anyone apparently literate enough to “post references to” relevant past court decisions which appear to support his position, while utterly ignoring Gonzales which eviscerates your claims about precedent for the applicability of the RFRA, is either not too literate after all, or is cherry-picking in support of an unsupportable position.
Only with truthseeker is it intentional.
It goes to show that even fools won’t walk into fire more than 100 times.
rasqual -
let me let you in on a secret (come closer to your computer).
I’m not a legal expert – I work in IT.
So i didn’t cherry pick – I found an article that cited a bunch of cases.
I believe the guy had an email – if you’d like to email him, I’m sure he’d love to hear from you.
On your longer post – it was nice and well written. I just don’t think this is the type of event that is going to kick the rock down the slippery slope.
while utterly ignoring Gonzales which eviscerates your claims
rasqual, you have just nailed Ex-RINO’s modus-operandi
rasqual said to Ex-RINO: EG, I think you’d simply say “the trend will stop before wildly bad things happen.
Then Ex-RINO replied: I just don’t think this is the type of event that is going to kick the rock down the slippery slope.
truthseeker says: rasqual, you hit the nail on the head again.
EG: I trust you’ll hold your claims of RFRA’s limited legal scope in abeyance until you’ve acquainted yourself with Gonzales as well as you were willing to acquaint yourself with cases that appeared to support your position? Surely you realize that I’m opening myself to the charge that I’m making stuff up, easily proven if you acquaint yourself with Gonzales and point out how I’m blowing smoke. It’s either that or I’m right. So you can either (a) do nothing and cling to your preference for less significant cases in respect of RFRA, (b) take me on good faith and wax a bit more agnostic on the matter, while understandably not taking a lot of your time (I’m IT/MIS as well, so I know how it goes) learning more about it, or read up on Gonzales and either (c) point out that I’m wrong or (c’) grant that RFRA’s scope is greater than you’d thought.
If there are further options, of course, you’re free to exercise them as well. For now. Who knows about the future. But who cares, right? It’s not eternal vigilance that’s the price of liberty, but eternal indifference. Right? I mean, let’s let each piece of wisdom die an implicit death well short of a brink that will never come — because its non-coming is inevitable.
Right?
I’m not a legal expert – I work in IT. So i didn’t cherry pick – I found an article that cited a bunch of cases. I believe the guy had an email – if you’d like to email him, I’m sure he’d love to hear from you.
And rasqual, that is the closest I have ever seen anyone get to Ex-RINO responding to one of his posts where he was shown to flat out wrong about something. Now if he would just be man enough to say “rasqual, you were right and I was wrong” it could be cathartic for him. lol
truthseeker: EG was not claiming expertise in his original citations: “My understanding, and a legal mind would be able to speak much more to it – was a case in 1990 regarding native americans fired from state jobs for using peyote. With that case, a more definable line was drawn in regards to religious freedom vs a legal statute.”
What I’d gently point out to EG, though, is that my non-legal mind has been able to speak at least a bit more to the issue. Perhaps he needs to be less trusting of his tendentious sources.
And he should not be quick to conclude that some of his interlocutors are leading him into more clarity — joan, for example, who offered this: “That case is Employment Division v. Smith, and yes, the Supreme Court determined that the Free Exercise Clause does not require the government to provide exemptions for religious organizations or people when their beliefs clash with neutral, generally applicable laws.”
joan is citing a precedent which motivated the passing of RFRA almost unanimously. What joan is not saying, however, is that the passage of RFRA was inconsequential for courts considering such cases. EG seems to have taken Joan’s explanation of what the court decided in the past as if it were normative. It’s not. RFRA moots that decision from a standpoint of precedent for the federal government (that was Gonzales). Another case – City of Boerne v. Flores — mooted the RFRA for the states.
Simply put, RFRA rules for federal laws. That’s a noncontroversially true remark.
Argh. That was unclear. “What joan is not saying” — I’m not implying that joan was failing to divulge a truth: that the passage of RFRA was inconsequential, etc. I’m saying that joan was succeeding in not claiming an untruth: that the passage was, etc.
In other words, joan was limiting her remarks to the question, not elucidating sufficiently to help EG understand the current state of the law.
Employment Division v. Smith motivated the passage of RFRA. City of Boerne v. Flores then mooted RFRA for state laws. Finally, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegeta validated RFRA for federal laws.
HTH
rasqual, I wasn’t so much posting about the case law as much as the way you picked up on Ex-RINO’s modus-operandi… ie his pattern of ignoring rebuttals that completely invalidate his arguments; and then replying with inconsequential drivel.
Rasqual -
My linking of that article wasn’t meant to be the guide to contraceptive mandates – I mean, it is according to that source, but I’m not near the legal mind to have a rundown of everything considered. It was only meant to show to Lrning (I think it was Lrning at that point in the conversation) that there is some legal history behind these types of mandates, and they are certainly not conclusive – so to think it is a slam dunk legal issue from either side is simply wishful thinking.
Do you have an impressive mind on the legal side – ever thought of pursuing the law?
I’m a rationalist, so law might have been a good career choice. I once enjoyed reading the occasional article in the Harvard or Yale law journals, if the topic was of interest. It all made sense to me, which I found encouraging.
When in conversation with folks and forced to confess being a rationalist, I tend to be apologetic for it. It’s terribly difficult, I think, to be a good one. Being one in the first place — however inept — is largely a matter of fate, I suspect. One is obliged to make do with ones endowments, and alas rationalism is a frightfully unforgiving vocation.
On the other hand, it’s a good way of giving a good hard stare at one’s own ego, because it’s so darned easy to be wrong.
I have yet to learn to be as forgiving of others as I hope they are of me.
(I’m certainly a philosopher, though not as rigorous as in my younger years. I’m trying to soften my rationalism with the aesthetics of musicianship in my mid-years.)
Note: the current question, however, is not one of legal prowess, but of simply understanding the legislative/judicial timeline. Again:
Employment Division v. Smith motivated the passage of RFRA. City of Boerne v. Flores then mooted RFRA for state laws. Finally, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegeta validated RFRA for federal laws.
rasqual,
I’m disappointed. I thought you were a mailman. Or was that a milkman? Rockwell rocks!
Gulliver
I personally believe that abortion is murder. Obviously, the government does not.
The government does not because many of those who personally believe abortion is murder continue to vote for proaborts.
Big bucket of Duh.
You have full promise that if I ever feel that catholics are going to be rounded up and put in concentration camps to be murdered, I will stand up and fight to the death.
Still missing the point, I see. You realize that when they first started rounding up Jews to be murdered in concentration camps, nobody but the government running the camps KNEW the Jews were going to be MURDERED in those camps, right?
There’s an awesome graphic novel called Maus by Art Spiegelman. I suggest you read it.
Just to break things down for you though-my point was that you, Ex-RINO, are the quintessential boiling frog.
EGV wrote, in reply to Lrning:
Lrning – I’m simply not Catholic so I don’t agree with all of their teachings anyways.
…but you’ve yet to show that you appreciate the difference between “you disagree” and “you are right”. You’re welcome to your own opinion… but if you want to be taken seriously, you also need to make an effort to have your opinions correspond to fact.
As do a lot of members of the Catholic church.
…and your reason for mentioning that is…?
My only point is, regardless of the legal ruling, not everyone will agree. Is this point controversial?
Not as stated, no… but I’d be hard-pressed to find a bit of trivia which was less relevant to the point at hand (or to anything else, for that matter); it’s almost as vacuous as a tautology. You might as well say, “I’m not sure what that fellow’s electric bill is for this month, but it’s rather unlikely to be identical to mine.” Why bother saying it? It’s the sort of thing said by someone who’s back-pedalled from an original point which was found not to have been supported adequately by the data/reasoning.
xalisae
Thanks for the thoughts. I disagree that the funding of contraception through health insurance plans is going to lead to the stripping of all religious rights in America, but of course, you are entitled to your opinions.
Paladin
Not supported by adequate data/reasoning? You do realize that we’ve been debating whether or not this mandate is trampling on the rights of religious people. What sort of data would you like – an opinion poll that shows about 50% of people think yes, and 50% no, and some sort of math formula to predict what the courts will rule? This isn’t a math problem – isn’t something that we can sit in a room for a long time and get some proof on.
Basically, to catch you up – various people said this was obviously an attack on religious liberties. I stated what you agree is the obvious – that some might think that, and some might not – and the courts will decide, and while that will hold the legal sway, it doesn’t mean everyone agrees.
Yes, I believe I stated the obvious, and sometimes I feel the obvious needs to be stated.
Like yes, people will disagree.
And no, funding contraception through an employer sponsored plan is probably not the first signs of an American holocaust.
EG: “no, funding contraception through an employer sponsored plan is probably not the first signs of an American holocaust.”
No. The first signs, though, doubtless were evident somewhere during the first 50 million killed.
So since we’ve already passed that threshold, how can you be so “meh” about government squeezing religious liberty between the vise jaws of coercive prescription and coercive proscription?
What is not mandated is prohibited.
This from an article at breitbart.com
In a press release, ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, said, “People of faith shouldn’t be punished by the government for following their beliefs when making decisions for themselves or their organizations.” Calling out the Obama administration for its manipulative practices, Mr. Theriot asserted:
The Obama administration invented a fake ‘right’ to get ‘free’ abortion pills and sterilization and elevated it above real freedoms protected by the First Amendment. This calculated and intentional attempt to eradicate constitutional protections should terrify every freedom-loving American.
Obama is not the only pol who sucks, not by any stretch. But just currently he’s the biggest blight on the republic.
http://ccsgp.webs.com/apps/blog/show/15604957-christian-unity-to-defeat-obamacare
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Not supported by adequate data/reasoning? You do realize that we’ve been debating whether or not this mandate is trampling on the rights of religious people.
Yes, I’m aware of that. And aside from statements of your own raw opinion (and a few rather silly fallacies which I’ll explain in a moment), you’ve offered nothing, whatsoever, of substance with which you might support those opinions reasonably.
What sort of data would you like – an opinion poll that shows about 50% of people think yes, and 50% no, and some sort of math formula to predict what the courts will rule?
(*groan*) You really can’t see the world through anything but political/moral-relativist lenses, can you?
This isn’t a math problem –
I’m aware of that. I merely reject your implied (and silly) notion that “no possible non-math problem can possible be settled with finality, and that it’s simply up for grabs”.
isn’t something that we can sit in a room for a long time and get some proof on.
That remains to be seen. I’ve already (in your hearing, I think) explained the difference between intrinsic (mathematical, a priori) and extrinsic (sense-data-based) proofs, and I’ve explained that the latter is still adequate to settle matters beyond all reasonable doubt. Honestly: do you need a mathematical proof to convince you that your wife exists? And yet, I don’t think you find that fact to be “up for grabs”. Do you need a corollary from abstract algebra in order to know that the murder of an innocent human being is always morally wrong? And yet, I assume (please tell me I’m right, in this case?) that you do not doubt that.
Basically, to catch you up –
(*sigh*) Practicing a bit of condescension on the side, are we?
various people said this was obviously an attack on religious liberties.
…and that is a statement which is not simply a matter of opinion, despite your insistent and unquestioned assumption to the contrary. It is a statement which can be examined objectively. What, did you truly think such a statement was no more objective than the statement “olives are wonderful”?
I stated what you agree is the obvious – that some might think that, and some might not – and the courts will decide, and while that will hold the legal sway, it doesn’t mean everyone agrees.
Again: I merely reject your unspoken assumption that “this difference of opinions is all there is to the matter”.
Yes, I believe I stated the obvious, and sometimes I feel the obvious needs to be stated.
Others believe that such statements should have at least a modicum of relevance to the topic at hand. “2 + 2 = 4” is plainly obvious and true, for example, but I didn’t see you stating it in your comments (nor did I expect it); so obviously you had a motive above and beyond the “it’s obvious!” idea; you thought that it was somehow germane to the topic… and I can’t fathom why.
Like yes, people will disagree.
See above, re: “relevance”.
And no, funding contraception through an employer sponsored plan is probably not the first signs of an American holocaust.
First of all: this is akin to saying that “one murder is probably not the first signs of a genocide”… which obtusely ignores the fact that the murder itself (yes, even one lowly murder) is an injustice, in and of itself. Second: since you’ve presented yourself as a person of political wiffles and waffles, polls and raw opinions, you don’t seem very concerned with fundamental principles (with regard to anything, it sometimes seems)… which are precisely what you’d need in order to understand what Xalisae and the rest have been trying (tirelessly) to tell you: that it is, in fact, possible to make reasonable judgments about the intentions (and future actions) of any given government/regime, given their past and present actions, attitudes, statements, etc. Third: do you not ever get tired of using such a bald-faced fallacy (look up “fallacy of the heap”, when you get a moment)?
To wit: when we are faced with an administration (and some allies in other branches of government) which has proclaimed a steadfast loyalty to an utterly secular worldview, an aggressive intention to promote abortion, contraception, and other facets of the culture of death (feel free to gasp at the dramatic language, and dismiss my entire argument thereby, if it will make you feel better), a marked hostility to any efforts of non-liberal Christianity to transform (or to stop contamination of) the culture, and the like… and when we see those words backed up by tireless votes, executive initiatives, interventions by governmental departments (e.g. HHS, DOJ, etc.; have you followed Jill’s accounts of government harassment, incidents of conservative Christian and/or pro-life groups being “flagged” as “threats”, and similar stories, or did those escape your notice?)… then yes, even despite the lack of a “truly elegant proof which will not fit in the margin” (inside joke for math geeks), we are still audacious enough to presume that we can make a determination about it. Mirabile dictu!
In short, EGV: you’ve spouted smoke and fluff, stuff and nonsense at us, while offering no refutations and plenty of raw opinions (dressed up with hand-waving and your trade-mark “running in rhetorical circles, when challenged”)… and that simply won’t do.
Evangelical college sues over HHS mandate:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/wheaton/chi-120718wheaton-college-lawsuit,0,4916653.story