Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[del]

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.

i know you think flattery is the quickest way to my heart, but i'm straight, googleboi

sorry

 

[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?

revel in your stupidity, googleboi

why should we be the only ones?

Why are you talking? Obviously you don't have anything to say or contribute. All you can do is toss around ad hominems and brag about your penis. This board really should enforce a minimum age of 13, at the very least.

It really shows the completely lack of substance that your view on this issue has. You'd be doing your position better to not say anything at all. You're proving just how full of stupidity your position really is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems to me that if the Catholic Bishops want to become public policy decision makers they have every right to run for public office. What they are doing now is acting as a political Action committee and inserting a wedge issue into the political process.

I suppose Citizens United v. FEC makes the Catholic Church a person, with the rights and responsibilities of a person. So let's take away their tax exempt status; I'm sure cities, counties and special districts around the nation would benefit from the real estate taxes paid by such a huge landowner. If not, why should I or any taxpayer fund fire or police protection to religious lands?

 

[Intense]

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.

You are the waste of Bandwidth Dip Shit. Who died and made you God? What you can't refute, you Censor. Got it. Real Fascist of you.

 

[Intense]

Seems to me that if the Catholic Bishops want to become public policy decision makers they have every right to run for public office. What they are doing now is acting as a political Action committee and inserting a wedge issue into the political process.

I suppose Citizens United v. FEC makes the Catholic Church a person, with the rights and responsibilities of a person. So let's take away their tax exempt status; I'm sure cities, counties and special districts around the nation would benefit from the real estate taxes paid by such a huge landowner. If not, why should I or any taxpayer fund fire or police protection to religious lands?

Bullshit argument Wry. First off, Obama would never even have won Election without Catholic Support in the first place. Second, you are not defending status quo, the Church is, as a matter of Conscience. This issue was not debated before being signed into law, so there really is no consent of the Governed. It was shoved down our throats. Why do you not anticipate consequence? Why should the Church be alright with funding Abortions, something it is Adamantly against in Principle? In matters of Conscience, who get's the last word in a Free Society? In any Society? What is corruption of Principle? Who loses in the end?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

They're actually 2,000 years old, but what's a millennium amongst friends?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems to me that if the Catholic Bishops want to become public policy decision makers they have every right to run for public office. What they are doing now is acting as a political Action committee and inserting a wedge issue into the political process.

I suppose Citizens United v. FEC makes the Catholic Church a person, with the rights and responsibilities of a person. So let's take away their tax exempt status; I'm sure cities, counties and special districts around the nation would benefit from the real estate taxes paid by such a huge landowner. If not, why should I or any taxpayer fund fire or police protection to religious lands?

Bullshit argument Wry. First off, Obama would never even have won Election without Catholic Support in the first place. Second, you are not defending status quo, the Church is, as a matter of Conscience. This issue was not debated before being signed into law, so there really is no consent of the Governed. It was shoved down our throats. Why do you not anticipate consequence? Why should the Church be alright with funding Abortions, something it is Adamantly against in Principle? In matters of Conscience, who get's the last word in a Free Society? In any Society? What is corruption of Principle? Who loses in the end?

I'm so glad you shared a reasoned and unemotional tirade with me. Thank you.

As for your opinion that this is a matter of conscience, I have some doubts. I suspect the Catholic Church and other competing religious orders need numbers, abortion and birth control would restrict the number of new followers. Telling someone of faith that they will go to hell for using contraception seems to me little different than the exercise of power and control of an abuser.

That is likely far fetched to you and probably to most of the Bishops. However, for anyone to suggest that the history of the Catholic Church as a political institution is absurd hasn't an inkling of history.

 

[del]

Seems to me that if the Catholic Bishops want to become public policy decision makers they have every right to run for public office. What they are doing now is acting as a political Action committee and inserting a wedge issue into the political process.

I suppose Citizens United v. FEC makes the Catholic Church a person, with the rights and responsibilities of a person. So let's take away their tax exempt status; I'm sure cities, counties and special districts around the nation would benefit from the real estate taxes paid by such a huge landowner. If not, why should I or any taxpayer fund fire or police protection to religious lands?

Bullshit argument Wry. First off, Obama would never even have won Election without Catholic Support in the first place. Second, you are not defending status quo, the Church is, as a matter of Conscience. This issue was not debated before being signed into law, so there really is no consent of the Governed. It was shoved down our throats. Why do you not anticipate consequence? Why should the Church be alright with funding Abortions, something it is Adamantly against in Principle? In matters of Conscience, who get's the last word in a Free Society? In any Society? What is corruption of Principle? Who loses in the end?

I'm so glad you shared a reasoned and unemotional tirade with me. Thank you.

As for your opinion that this is a matter of conscience, I have some doubts. I suspect the Catholic Church and other competing religious orders need numbers, abortion and birth control would restrict the number of new followers. Telling someone of faith that they will go to hell for using contraception seems to me little different than the exercise of power and control of an abuser.

That is likely far fetched to you and probably to most of the Bishops. However, for anyone to suggest that the history of the Catholic Church as a political institution is absurd hasn't an inkling of history.

nice strawman. barley?

 

[del]

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

revel in your stupidity, googleboi

why should we be the only ones?

Why are you talking? Obviously you don't have anything to say or contribute. All you can do is toss around ad hominems and brag about your penis. This board really should enforce a minimum age of 13, at the very least.

It really shows the completely lack of substance that your view on this issue has. You'd be doing your position better to not say anything at all. You're proving just how full of stupidity your position really is.

of course i am.

because circumcision and birth control are equivalent issues in catholic dogma.

idiot

 

[Inthemiddle]

You are the waste of Bandwidth Dip Shit. Who died and made you God? What you can't refute, you Censor. Got it. Real Fascist of you.

 

[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?

They're actually 2,000 years old, but what's a millennium amongst friends?

Actually, if you want to be specific, the Gospels that appear in the bible are about 1900 years old. There are earlier ones, and later ones. But that's not really the point I was going for. He's complaining about the fact that the church doctrine comes from 1442 and is allegedly outdated now, and all I was doing was pointing out that most church doctrine predates that by a very, very, long time.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Of course i am.

because circumcision and birth control are equivalent issues in catholic dogma.

idiot

Both are condemned by the church. So why aren't you being consistent? That's not my fault, it's yours. Don't blame me for your lack of intelligence.

 

[del]

Of course i am.

because circumcision and birth control are equivalent issues in catholic dogma.

idiot

Both are condemned by the church. So why aren't you being consistent? That's not my fault, it's yours. Don't blame me for your lack of intelligence.

circumcision is not condemned by the church, despite your high pitched squeals to the contrary.

the pope has never spoken ex cathedra on the matter as has been done re: birth control and abortion.

have a nice day, dipshit

 

[syrenn]

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.

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.

Obama did not compromise on anything.

 

[Inthemiddle]

circumcision is not condemned by the church, despite your high pitched squeals to the contrary.

You read it yourself. Do you not know what an Ecumenical council is? Here, let me google that for you.

the pope has never spoken ex cathedra on the matter as has been done re: birth control and abortion.

Again, do you not know what an Ecumenical council is? Do you not understand that they are infallible? Do you realize that the Council of Florence was convoked by, and presided over, by the Pope?

have a nice day, dipshit

I hope you do. Because you'll be going to Hell when you die, because circumcision is a mortal sin. At least, according to your church.

 

[syrenn]

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.

I guess you dont get the bit about .... the church is not denying them birth control... they are just not covering it in health care THEY offer. The chruch is not saying that they cannot have, procure it on their own, or use it.

 

[del]

circumcision is not condemned by the church, despite your high pitched squeals to the contrary.

You read it yourself. Do you not know what an Ecumenical council is? Here, let me google that for you.

the pope has never spoken ex cathedra on the matter as has been done re: birth control and abortion.

Again, do you not know what an Ecumenical council is? Do you not understand that they are infallible? Do you realize that the Council of Florence was convoked by, and presided over, by the Pope?

have a nice day, dipshit

I hope you do. Because you'll be going to Hell when you die, because circumcision is a mortal sin. At least, according to your church.

mad skilz, d00d

 

[syrenn]

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.

It may be a new law now... so i would think the question is, is it constitutional in regards to religious institutions.


Not offering birth control is sub par health care? If so .. i do hope they quit their jobs and find others that provide what they want.

 

[syrenn]

Seems to me that if the Catholic Bishops want to become public policy decision makers they have every right to run for public office. What they are doing now is acting as a political Action committee and inserting a wedge issue into the political process.

I suppose Citizens United v. FEC makes the Catholic Church a person, with the rights and responsibilities of a person. So let's take away their tax exempt status; I'm sure cities, counties and special districts around the nation would benefit from the real estate taxes paid by such a huge landowner. If not, why should I or any taxpayer fund fire or police protection to religious lands?

Rather like obama trying to insert himself like a wedge into religious issues?

 

[Katzndogz]

It is not unreasonable to expect people to contribute to their own healthcare. Liberals believe that women will be the vanguard to achieve the observation of Alexander Tyler, that people will vote themselves benefits from the public treasury until the nation collapses.

As a woman myself, I hope that women will not be that truly stupid.