Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[Inthemiddle]

Employers, in this case the chruch, contact with insurance companies for what they will and will not cover.

My insurance does not cover elective surgery or certain drugs. If i want them I pay for them.

That is NO different then what the chruch is doing.... and wants to continue to do.

How hard is this to understand?

Yes, employers negotiate with insurers to come up with packages. Of course, what you're not mentioning there is that those negotiations usually boil down to dollars and little more. The church is the rare exception where some kind of ideology comes into play.

Elective surgery and birth control are not really comparable medical issues. Oh, and by "elective surgery" I'm sure you were specifically referring to non-medically necessary elective surgery. If you have cancer and need to have a tumor removed, that's usually an elective surgery. In any event, you're essentially comparing face lifts and botox injections to preventative medicine. Apples and oranges.

I really don't care what the church wants to do. After all, the church wants to rule the entire world. I'm not about to call that a first amendment issue and just hand Benny 16 the world's scepter. While I am not a proponent of the Health Care bill, I certainly have no interest in entertaining ideas that the church should magically be exempt from its lawful requirements as an employer to its employees, simply because it wants to try to have power to force employees to step in line with whatever ideology the church wants.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That's not what was said. Read it, perhaps reread it again and again. You are not comprehending what was said.

I provided a direct quote.

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

 

[sealybobo]

Democrats seem well thought out on these boards. Repubicans seem to have their talking points down.

 

[syrenn]

Employers, in this case the chruch, contact with insurance companies for what they will and will not cover.

My insurance does not cover elective surgery or certain drugs. If i want them I pay for them.

That is NO different then what the chruch is doing.... and wants to continue to do.

How hard is this to understand?

Yes, employers negotiate with insurers to come up with packages. Of course, what you're not mentioning there is that those negotiations usually boil down to dollars and little more. The church is the rare exception where some kind of ideology comes into play.

Elective surgery and birth control are not really comparable medical issues. Oh, and by "elective surgery" I'm sure you were specifically referring to non-medically necessary elective surgery. If you have cancer and need to have a tumor removed, that's usually an elective surgery. In any event, you're essentially comparing face lifts and botox injections to preventative medicine. Apples and oranges.

I really don't care what the church wants to do. After all, the church wants to rule the entire world. I'm not about to call that a first amendment issue and just hand Benny 16 the world's scepter. While I am not a proponent of the Health Care bill, I certainly have no interest in entertaining ideas that the church should magically be exempt from its lawful requirements as an employer to its employees, simply because it wants to try to have power to force employees to step in line with whatever ideology the church wants.

Yes that is what i mean by "elective surgery"

I have zero love for the chruch or what it wants or doesn't want..... i am also pro choice and women's rights. So me coming down on the side of the church is against just about everything i am. BUT.. the chruch is right and its slippery slope if they lose.

If you don't want to work for the church.. don't. No one is forcing you to work for them. The church is offering plan X.. and plan X covers this and not that.. If you want more... pay for it. OR find a different job that does carry the insurance you need and or want.

 

[Annie]

That's not what was said. Read it, perhaps reread it again and again. You are not comprehending what was said.

I provided a direct quote.

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Which you failed to understand. Read the whole thing, again.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yes that is what i mean by "elective surgery"

I have zero love for the chruch or what it wants or doesn't want..... i am also pro choice and women's rights. So me coming down on the side of the church is against just about everything i am. BUT.. the chruch is right and its slippery slope if they lose.

If you don't want to work for the church.. don't. No one is forcing you to work for them. The church is offering plan X.. and plan X covers this and not that.. If you want more... pay for it. OR find a different job that does carry the insurance you need and or want.

You're right, nobody is forcing anyone to work for the church. But, someone has to do it, just like someone has to do the job of riding around on a smelly truck and collecting my trash twice a week. And not only that, but in a way, especially in economic times like these, it is ever more frequently the case that survival forces us to accept what jobs may be available. I'm sure that a single mother and life long atheist out there raising her two children might prefer a more comfortable work setting than to be a secretary in a church organization. But if that's the only job available in times like these, shouldn't she take the job?

Like I said, I'm not a supporter of the Health Care bill. I just don't have any tolerance for the idea that the church somehow deserves some kind of special exception to the law just because it has an irrational desire to micro manage certain parts of people's lives if and when it has the chance. The bill is designed with a grand plan to make basic health care available to everyone in the country, and that plan relies heavily on work place health care coverage. Considering the purpose of the law, creating an exception for the church that would still leave such commonplace preventative medical treatment like birth control out of the reach of some people.....well, it makes about as much sense as going to a strip club wearing a blind fold. You're counteracting the purpose of doing it in the first place.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Which you failed to understand. Read the whole thing, again.

It's very clear and explicit. Stop trying to call it a swan when you know damn well it's just an ugly duck. You're bordering on delusional for god's sake.

 

[syrenn]

Yes that is what i mean by "elective surgery"

I have zero love for the chruch or what it wants or doesn't want..... i am also pro choice and women's rights. So me coming down on the side of the church is against just about everything i am. BUT.. the chruch is right and its slippery slope if they lose.

If you don't want to work for the church.. don't. No one is forcing you to work for them. The church is offering plan X.. and plan X covers this and not that.. If you want more... pay for it. OR find a different job that does carry the insurance you need and or want.

You're right, nobody is forcing anyone to work for the church. But, someone has to do it, just like someone has to do the job of riding around on a smelly truck and collecting my trash twice a week. And not only that, but in a way, especially in economic times like these, it is ever more frequently the case that survival forces us to accept what jobs may be available. I'm sure that a single mother and life long atheist out there raising her two children might prefer a more comfortable work setting than to be a secretary in a church organization. But if that's the only job available in times like these, shouldn't she take the job?

yep, that is about the size of it. If she doesnt want the job, i am sure there are others who do.

Like I said, I'm not a supporter of the Health Care bill. I just don't have any tolerance for the idea that the church somehow deserves some kind of special exception to the law just because it has an irrational desire to micro manage certain parts of people's lives if and when it has the chance. The bill is designed with a grand plan to make basic health care available to everyone in the country, and that plan relies heavily on work place health care coverage. Considering the purpose of the law, creating an exception for the church that would still leave such commonplace preventative medical treatment like birth control out of the reach of some people.....well, it makes about as much sense as going to a strip club wearing a blind fold. You're counteracting the purpose of doing it in the first place.

And all i have to say about that is... tough. If you want something that is not covered by your insurance... buy it on your own. Just like the rest of us.

 

[Annie]

Yes that is what i mean by "elective surgery"

I have zero love for the chruch or what it wants or doesn't want..... i am also pro choice and women's rights. So me coming down on the side of the church is against just about everything i am. BUT.. the chruch is right and its slippery slope if they lose.

If you don't want to work for the church.. don't. No one is forcing you to work for them. The church is offering plan X.. and plan X covers this and not that.. If you want more... pay for it. OR find a different job that does carry the insurance you need and or want.

You're right, nobody is forcing anyone to work for the church. But, someone has to do it, just like someone has to do the job of riding around on a smelly truck and collecting my trash twice a week. And not only that, but in a way, especially in economic times like these, it is ever more frequently the case that survival forces us to accept what jobs may be available. I'm sure that a single mother and life long atheist out there raising her two children might prefer a more comfortable work setting than to be a secretary in a church organization. But if that's the only job available in times like these, shouldn't she take the job?

yep, that is about the size of it. If she doesnt want the job, i am sure there are others who do.

Like I said, I'm not a supporter of the Health Care bill. I just don't have any tolerance for the idea that the church somehow deserves some kind of special exception to the law just because it has an irrational desire to micro manage certain parts of people's lives if and when it has the chance. The bill is designed with a grand plan to make basic health care available to everyone in the country, and that plan relies heavily on work place health care coverage. Considering the purpose of the law, creating an exception for the church that would still leave such commonplace preventative medical treatment like birth control out of the reach of some people.....well, it makes about as much sense as going to a strip club wearing a blind fold. You're counteracting the purpose of doing it in the first place.

And all i have to say about that is... tough. If you want it something that is not covered by your insurance... buy it on your own. Just like the rest of us.

Yep, those that want bc and are working a job that provides insurance for other issues, have been paying for bc all along. This wasn't brought up by employees without bc insurance, this was brought up by special interest groups with influence in the administration.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know what's worse. The continuum fallacy. Or the fact that you are trying to make a positive case in favor of extremism. You're pathetic on both counts.

I see you know some fancy words, too bad you don't know how to think. Compromise is not always a good thing, something I just demonstrated, yet you insist that I accept a compromise that is not actually a compromise. My position is that the government does hot have the authority to impose any mandates on its citizens, yours is that I should accept mandates that you think promote the common good. Rorschach had it right.

Uh, are you going to just make shit up, or are you going to get back in touch with reality?

Making stuff up? Do you expect me to believe that, just because the government says something, it will be true? Would you like a list of all the things the government has said this week that are wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They won't find one, that isn't the teaching of the church. The only mention in Church teaching is that for 'religious reasons' it's not necessary, though there are other reasons, including the wishes of the parents that are fine. No problem with the procedure.

Well, I guess you feel pretty stupid right about now. Actually, the Council of Florence declared that even if not done for religious reasons, circumcision cannot be practiced "without loss of eternal salvation," as you see from my above post. So.....yeah.

Well you must be feeling pretty stupid right about now, that you didn't understand what you were quoting about. Good lord!

Yeah, it is always amazing when people who do not study a subject take a quote from an expert in that subject and say it proves something it doesn't.

 

[Annie]

Well, I guess you feel pretty stupid right about now. Actually, the Council of Florence declared that even if not done for religious reasons, circumcision cannot be practiced "without loss of eternal salvation," as you see from my above post. So.....yeah.

Well you must be feeling pretty stupid right about now, that you didn't understand what you were quoting about. Good lord!

Yeah, it is always amazing when people who do not study a subject take a quote from an expert in that subject and say it proves something it doesn't.

LOL! In actuality it did say something, just not what he thought it did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

link?

You mean, you don't already know? You mean to tell me you're running your mouth without knowing what you're talking about? For shame.

Eccumenical Council of Florence and Council of Basel

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

FYI, the key part of that paragraph is the part I highlighted in red. The issue they are talking about is not circumcision, it is the reliance on following the Mosaic laws to achieve salvation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right... so what its saying is the chruch is not going to pay for it, but the insurance companies will raise MY rates to cover the costs.

Oh hell no.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Now, I'm not in favor of this option. I think that the original plan is better and more fair. I'm just pointing out that the church is not going to be forced to pay for birth control. Then again, the original plan wouldn't have had the church paying for birth control either. Any differences in the premiums would be passed along to the employee.

How about if you want something that is not covered under your insurance plan.... pay for it yourself if you want it.

I would agree with that. The only problem is that the plan has to be available for these women to be able to obtain it. That's why I favor the original plan. That way, women can pay for the coverage they are using, instead of everyone else having to pay extra just so that we can maintain some superficial appearance of being politically correct.

Employers, in this case the chruch, contact with insurance companies for what they will and will not cover.

My insurance does not cover elective surgery or certain drugs. If i want them I pay for them.

That is NO different then what the chruch is doing.... and wants to continue to do.

How hard is this to understand?

He thinks Obama compromised, and that makes the rest of us assholes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not what was said. Read it, perhaps reread it again and again. You are not comprehending what was said.

I provided a direct quote.

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

You missed the topic sentence of the paragraph that put the quote into a context for people to properly interpret it. Pretty amazing thing since you are trying to lecture me on things that are obviously beyond your understanding.

 

[Annie]

For the simple: Circumcision wasn't necessary for religious reasons. Baptism into Christianity was the saving grace.

It didn't 'forbid' circumcisions. As made obvious by the guy writing about his scars and the millions of Catholic boys and men that have undergone the procedure.

 

[Ravi]

What if elephants could fly?

Way to avoid the question.

It's not a valid question Ravi. We are not dealing with what ifs, we are dealing with the actual fact that the first amendment may be under attack.

Now I am not a very religious person, and I am not a catholic, but I'll be damned if i will allow the constitution to be broken. And this may be doing it.

The point is that if you allow a business a religious exemption for one religious belief you certainly can't deny them one for another. I doubt Catholics are going to suddenly embrace pedophilia but what if some organization like NAMBLA becomes a religion?

Anyway, here's a good link on the ins and outs of the issue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/10/health-care-law-catholics-birth-control/

 

[L.K.Eder]

It's not a valid question Ravi. We are not dealing with what ifs, we are dealing with the actual fact that the first amendment may be under attack.

Now I am not a very religious person, and I am not a catholic, but I'll be damned if i will allow the constitution to be broken. And this may be doing it.

 

[tinydancer]

Does anyone know that the Church bowed out of mandatory circumcision mid last century?

Somewhere around the 1500's I think it was.

 

[tinydancer]

For the simple: Circumcision wasn't necessary for religious reasons. Baptism into Christianity was the saving grace.

It didn't 'forbid' circumcisions. As made obvious by the guy writing about his scars and the millions of Catholic boys and men that have undergone the procedure.

But you have to bear in mind Annie with all due respect it's considered a positive act amongst Jews and Islam. Now to be true, it's not a prerequisite to embrace Islam.

We've got a lot of grey area here.

Here's where I'll come at this.

When Pam Anderson or Joan Rivers are bitching about circumcision as a cosmetic surgery that is not necessary, I might take someone up on this seriously.