Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[JoeB131]

Wow.

As I said the last time you said that, the EEOC can say all sorts of things, and get overturned in court. The EEOC ruled a few years ago that churches couldn't fire people without government approval, that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and was unanimously struck down this year. The case you think is so wonderful hasn't even got past one judge, never mind the Supreme Court. In fact, EEOC is supposed to issue a revised ruling this month, my guess is they will simply argue that their ruling is not moot because the HHS rule takes precedence.

Guy, the Courts have been ruling for a woman's right to birth control since 1965.

The Church is not going to win this one. Sorry.

 

[Intense]

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/

Absurd Argument. What is next? The Church of Violent Felonies? The First Amendment does not Exempt Any Institution from Prosecution when wrong Doing is involved. Where Harm is done, The Institution has an Obligation to report it. Even in Confession, if a Priest has knowledge of a threat or crime yet to be committed, there is a Legal and Moral Obligation to Report it. Why make false argument?

 

[Intense]

Wow.

As I said the last time you said that, the EEOC can say all sorts of things, and get overturned in court. The EEOC ruled a few years ago that churches couldn't fire people without government approval, that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and was unanimously struck down this year. The case you think is so wonderful hasn't even got past one judge, never mind the Supreme Court. In fact, EEOC is supposed to issue a revised ruling this month, my guess is they will simply argue that their ruling is not moot because the HHS rule takes precedence.

Guy, the Courts have been ruling for a woman's right to birth control since 1965.

The Church is not going to win this one. Sorry.

The argument has nothing to do with Women's Right's. The Church does not stop these Women from acting on Will or Conscience. False Argument. You try to force something on us that has not been done before, proclaiming some imagined moral high ground, without even knowing the meaning of the term. Fail.

 

[del]

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.

if it was 1442, you'd almost have a point

what a fucking dope

 

[del]

Wow.

As I said the last time you said that, the EEOC can say all sorts of things, and get overturned in court. The EEOC ruled a few years ago that churches couldn't fire people without government approval, that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and was unanimously struck down this year. The case you think is so wonderful hasn't even got past one judge, never mind the Supreme Court. In fact, EEOC is supposed to issue a revised ruling this month, my guess is they will simply argue that their ruling is not moot because the HHS rule takes precedence.

Guy, the Courts have been ruling for a woman's right to birth control since 1965.

The Church is not going to win this one. Sorry.

get back to me when they rule someone else has to pay for it

dude

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Not only does that seem as if you were trying to spin the discussion into a new topic, but it's also an unreasonable stance. This isn't about anyone "wanting something not covered by their insurance." A law has been passed that mandates certain basic coverage for work place health care coverage. The purpose of the law is to expand the accessibility of affordable basic health care to all Americans. Now the church wants to be exempt from the law, because it doesn't like certain kinds of medical treatment and they want to control people's lives, and take decisions away from the individuals. I agree, tough. Tough cookies to the church.

Furthermore, what is at all reasonable about demanding that people simply settle for sub-par insurance coverage by the force of their ideologically bent employer, or have to go through the even greater expense of paying out of pocket? Again, this would be completely antithetical to the purpose of the law. You are essentially saying that since you don't like the health care law, you want Obama to change the law in such ways as would be self defeating, and help ensure that the policy proves to be a failure. That's not reasonable in the slightest. I am opposed to the health care law also. But inasmuch as it's been passed, I do hope that it will produce a benefit to the public greater than what harm may come of it. If it ends up being something that works, then 20 years from now I have no problem looking back and saying that I guess I was wrong. But I'm not going to sit here and actively hope that the church can sabotage the policy just so I'll be able to say "told ya so" later on.

 

[Intense]

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.

Not only does that seem as if you were trying to spin the discussion into a new topic, but it's also an unreasonable stance. This isn't about anyone "wanting something not covered by their insurance." A law has been passed that mandates certain basic coverage for work place health care coverage. The purpose of the law is to expand the accessibility of affordable basic health care to all Americans. Now the church wants to be exempt from the law, because it doesn't like certain kinds of medical treatment and they want to control people's lives, and take decisions away from the individuals. I agree, tough. Tough cookies to the church.

Furthermore, what is at all reasonable about demanding that people simply settle for sub-par insurance coverage by the force of their ideologically bent employer, or have to go through the even greater expense of paying out of pocket? Again, this would be completely antithetical to the purpose of the law. You are essentially saying that since you don't like the health care law, you want Obama to change the law in such ways as would be self defeating, and help ensure that the policy proves to be a failure. That's not reasonable in the slightest. I am opposed to the health care law also. But inasmuch as it's been passed, I do hope that it will produce a benefit to the public greater than what harm may come of it. If it ends up being something that works, then 20 years from now I have no problem looking back and saying that I guess I was wrong. But I'm not going to sit here and actively hope that the church can sabotage the policy just so I'll be able to say "told ya so" later on.

Yep. Let's Pass this Bill and make it Law, so that We can find out what's in it. That is so American. You are so Right,you have never been more Right. Let's pass a Law that makes Any American that engages in High Risk Sex pay 10X more than the rest of us for Insurance. How's that? Once It's Law, Nobody has the Right to Question or Complain Right? Ass Hat.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Compromise is not always a good thing, something I just demonstrated

You produced an extreme example as a refutation of the general concept of compromise, antagonistically to the my comments about the fact that our country nowadays is crippled by an incessant refusal to ever compromise on anything. You are clearly arguing in favor of extremism. Oh, and you're committing fallacy by accident in doing so. Either way, your position is completely without merit, both logically and ethically.

yet you insist that I accept a compromise that is not actually a compromise.

No, I expect the church to stop acting like a toddler who wants more candy. This has nothing to do with you.

My position is that the government does hot have the authority to impose any mandates on its citizens

Then your position is absurd. Every law is a mandate on the citizens. I know that you hate the government and you hate America. So get the fuck out already.

yours is that I should accept mandates that you think promote the common good.

No, that's not my position. But you know it all, don't you? Anyone who disagrees with you even 1% has to be 100% something else, isn't that right? You simply can't wrap your mind around the fact that I am opposed to the health care law, but that I'm further opposed to the church receiving special exceptions just so that it can force its twisted ideology down the throats of people who don't want it. I'm opposed to the idea that any religious institution has any place to tell its followers what kind of medical treatment they can receive, and I'm opposed to the idea that ANY employer, including a religious organization, has any right to have that kind of control over the personal lives of its employees.

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?

Great. So you going to argue the moon landing was fake now, too? If you don't have evidence, then don't make claims.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Mosaic law? Really? Well color me tickled. I had no idea! Fucking idiot.

Perhaps you should read a little more than a single sentence. You know, at least up to this part:

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.

 

[del]

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.

Mosaic law? Really? Well color me tickled. I had no idea! Fucking idiot.

Perhaps you should read a little more than a single sentence. You know, at least up to this part:

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.

all i have to do is look down to know you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, googleboi



keep swinging

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the topic sentence? Oh get off it! That's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard for ignoring what's been explicitly said. Perhaps I'll use that next time I get pulled over for speeding. "Officer, I think if you look at the statute you'll realize that you missed the topic sentence that put the speeding regulation into context. It's about saving lives. Since my speeding didn't kill anyone, you can't actually give me a ticket."

 

[Intense]

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the topic sentence? Oh get off it! That's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard for ignoring what's been explicitly said. Perhaps I'll use that next time I get pulled over for speeding. "Officer, I think if you look at the statute you'll realize that you missed the topic sentence that put the speeding regulation into context. It's about saving lives. Since my speeding didn't kill anyone, you can't actually give me a ticket."

I bet you are in it for your most favorite part of the arrest, the cavity search, right?

 

[Inthemiddle]

It didn't 'forbid' circumcisions.

Except the part where it explicitly denounces the practice of circumcision, and explicitly disclaims any concern for whether one "puts your hope in it," and where it explicitly states that the practice of circumcision "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

So, explain to me this: what does "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation" mean, if not "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation"?

 

[del]

It didn't 'forbid' circumcisions.

Except the part where it explicitly denounces the practice of circumcision, and explicitly disclaims any concern for whether one "puts your hope in it," and where it explicitly states that the practice of circumcision "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

So, explain to me this: what does "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation" mean, if not "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation"?

what part of wrong eludes you, googleboi?

idiot

 

[Inthemiddle]

if it was 1442, you'd almost have a point

what a fucking dope

The gospels are 1000 years older. Has the church abandoned those too?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yep. Let's Pass this Bill and make it Law, so that We can find out what's in it. That is so American. You are so Right,you have never been more Right. Let's pass a Law that makes Any American that engages in High Risk Sex pay 10X more than the rest of us for Insurance. How's that? Once It's Law, Nobody has the Right to Question or Complain Right? Ass Hat.

Why are you being a troll? If you're going to criticize my positions, you better get my position correct in the first place.

 

[Inthemiddle]

all i have to do is look down to know you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, googleboi



keep swinging

See you in Hell, then. Because you've lost eternal salvation. That's the position of the church. It's just frequently overlooked.

 

[del]

if it was 1442, you'd almost have a point

what a fucking dope

The gospels are 1000 years older. Has the church abandoned those too?

revel in your stupidity, googleboi

why should we be the only ones?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I bet you are in it for your most favorite part of the arrest, the cavity search, right?

Why are trolls like this tolerated on this board? It's a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Inthemiddle]

what part of wrong eludes you

The part where you are able to provide any evidence whatsoever. And no, claims about how glorious your penis is don't count.