Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[del]

ginandtacos.com » Blog Archive » DANCE! DANCE!

thank god you're here

joey was running out of really stupid shit to say

kudos

The guy who thanked you for that post has me and Joey beat in the stupid shit dept.

not even close; you're way too modest

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is truly awesome to see how President Obama trapped the GOP into taking ridiculously radical positions on

birth control, of all things,

something that has been a non-issue among normal Americans for decades.

Political genius.

Those who think about it know that it is not about Birth Control. It is about the 1st amendment. But then it's Obama so you excuse that.

It's about the 1st amendment alright; it's about conservatives not understanding the 1st amendment.

 

[GuyPinestra]

It is truly awesome to see how President Obama trapped the GOP into taking ridiculously radical positions on

birth control, of all things,

something that has been a non-issue among normal Americans for decades.

Political genius.

Those who think about it know that it is not about Birth Control. It is about the 1st amendment. But then it's Obama so you excuse that.

It's about the 1st amendment alright; it's about conservatives not understanding the 1st amendment.

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion. It's called charity, or social justice, if you prefer. They don't make any money doing it, in fact they spend BILLIONS. Exercising their religion.

NOT 'running a business', NOT 'making a buck', but EXERCISING their religious dictates.

And helping millions of poor people in the process.

WHY would you or anyone else want to put them in a position to STOP?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is truly awesome to see how President Obama trapped the GOP into taking ridiculously radical positions on

birth control, of all things,

something that has been a non-issue among normal Americans for decades.

Political genius.

Those who think about it know that it is not about Birth Control. It is about the 1st amendment. But then it's Obama so you excuse that.

It's about the 1st amendment alright; it's about conservatives not understanding the 1st amendment.

I haven't seen one person on the other side of this debate that can explain how this is not a 1st Amendment issue, or how the many liberals and conservatives who agree with me, got this wrong. That includes every pathetic attempt you made to explain it.

 

[frazzledgear]

And.....i cannot believe i am sticking up for the church!!! I swear i have got to be running a fervor or something...

No, it only means in spite of your general political views, you still know what our real rights are and I hope it means you can re-evaluate other of your views in light of it. Our real rights are intended to protect us FROM government. They are not tools for government to use as a club against the people in order to tyrannize targeted, unsympathetic groups of Americans and force them to be the servants of others against their will to provide goods and services to others. The fact it violates the religious beliefs of some is an additional right being violated, but not the only one. When government seeks to expand its power and control over others, it doesn't just start right off the bat by targeting the majority. It identifies and targets a group perceived to be unsympathetic and therefore least likely to be defended by others. Once the foot is in the door it becomes PRECEDENT and therefore easier to get away with it the next time. Sadly some people really do think who can be "allowed" to enjoy their rights and who won't be is THEIR right to decide but it is a fact many liberals have no problem if others are being stripped of rights they personally have no use for and place no value on. In their mind it means no one else can be allowed value it either and that it is only THEIR judgment about the value of that right that can be allowed to rule. Look how many even think the fact a high percentage of US Catholic women violate the tenets of their religion means the Catholic Church loses its rights of religious freedom when that is completely irrelevant. So watching the Catholic Church be betrayed by Obama in this way after he specifically told them he would not do this is their idea of the proper use of government. To everyone else it is an abomination and a gross abuse of government power and a violation of the 1st Amendment doing something government was banned from claiming a power to do at all.

Obama's "compromise" after discovering a lot of Americans weren't going to roll over and allow the rights of others to be trampled like this -was no compromise at all. There IS no compromise possible on this one. Obama still claims the dictator-like power to ORDER private employers to provide or pay for a specific good and service as part of their benefit package -and even if doing so violates their religious doctrine. The fact he is ALLOWING an exemption is meaningless -it is something that can be withdrawn because he did NOT withdraw the claim that government has the RIGHT and POWER to force individuals and private sector employers to violate their own religious beliefs and doctrine. He just exempted them .....for now. As a FAVOR, not as their RIGHT to religious freedom.

Government doesn't have that right even if it DIDN"T violate any religious beliefs! What fucking moron thinks a one-size-fits-all insurance policy dictated by government is the best answer here? What if a significant percentage of my employees (for whatever reason) have special needs children and still others have critically ill spouses -and the employees and I agree insurance should be tailored to the needs of MY employees and not those of outsiders or government, that the top priorities for insurance benefits would include expanded coverage for the special needs children beyond the bare minimum normally seen and expanded services for both the employee and their ill spouse to assist them both in dealing with it and they were willing to forgo other types of coverage like vision coverage in order to get it? But then I have to tell them SORRY -government has ordered me to put BIRTH CONTROL PILLS as the top priority BY LAW instead and because of that I can't afford the more extensive coverage I wanted for your special needs children or to assist you and your sick spouses as I would otherwise. But HEY GOOD NEWS, instead we have BIRTH CONTROL PILLS as our top priority, something far more affordable than the specialized care you wanted and even though not one employee listed it as THEIR top priority! Its the top priority of leftwing extremists and what THEY want is all that counts. The consequences of being ORDERED to provide coverage for birth control pills instead of requiring people to provide that for themselves as they SHOULD is that I can't afford to cover far more important problems my employees have to deal with and have a much harder time affording over birth control pills -needs that may be different from the employees at yet another business that are still different from the next! We are NOT a one-size-fits-all society but when it comes to government, that is the only thing it can do -and as a result, making it among the worst possible answers for any given problem. Because the raging power hungry leftwing extremists know what is best for YOU -and what is best for YOU is to have unwanted expanded birth control pill coverage instead of expanded services for your special needs child! Because the left insists being able to fuck worry free on someone else's dime is a far more valuable and far greater "right" in this country that is even superior to the right of religious freedom! What insurance policy I CHOOSE to offer my employees and the details of that coverage is NOT the business of government. OMG -government isn't ordering me to make sure my employees out of pocket expenses for routine care won't exceed a certain percent of total cost, isn't ordering me to include all sorts of specialized coverage that may be highly desired by MY employees -but ordering me to include birth control coverage whether MY employees want it or not and even if it means it raises THEIR out of pocket expenses? WTF? THIS is what the power hungry do and they don't give a shit whether it actually does more good than harm -because hey, they declared birth control pills to be a "right" and their job to GIVE you that "right". Even though our rights don't come from government and our rights are something we try to PROTECT from government.

By identifying highly desired goods and services , especially those perceived to be highly valued by the majority -and then calling those "rights", it allows the deliberate perversion of our rights. Look how many people just in this forum make it obvious they place no value and at times, no understanding of their real rights -in favor of cheap trinkets the power hungry dangle in front on them and tell them those goods and services are their "real" rights. And don't kid yourself, calling any tangible object, goods or services a "right" is a declaration by some that means they have a "right" to use the POWER of government to FORCE others to provide or produce that good or service, even if it is against their will, even if it means violating their real rights to do so. Declaring goods and services to be our real "rights" is part of the detailed game plan for expanding the power of government by the left. It is the left that seeks the constant expansion of government powers because they know THEY will be the ones sitting on the top of the heap wielding all that power and control over others. They HUNGER for it. It is conservatives who oppose the expansion of government powers no matter who intends to wield it so it won't be them sitting on the top of the power heap and the left knows it -it is why they try to avoid any debate about the proper role, size and power of government to one about phony "rights" to desired goods and services and how mean those evil Republicans are for not agreeing you have a RIGHT to whatever goods or services catches your fancy today. The left knows they will be at the top of the heap wielding all that expanded government power - they have a game plan to make it happen, one that is no secret but spelled out in several of their favorite leftwing "bibles". Perverting our pure rights is TOP PRIORITY and absolutely necessary in order to expand their power and control. And this is just one tactic that enjoys a great deal of success since it appeals to the greedy, covetous nature of man in the first place like most of their arguments. The left will NOT allow our rights to be defined as OUR acts that are protected FROM government. They MUST be perverted to be little more than the tools by government can use to club citizens and force them to do what GOVERNMENT demands they do.

This isn't a fight the Catholic Church or Republicans sought but it is one with serious implications. It was intended to be used as a club to force a religious organization to behave like a government controlled secular one instead. We either understand what is behind the perversion of our rights and allowing the power hungry to declare tangible goods and services to be a "right" when by definition that means making government owned slaves of some even if against their will -or we join the ranks of the government owned slaves and wait for the other shoe to fall. There is a reason religious freedom made top of the list in the Bill of Rights, including the right to LIVE in accordance with those beliefs. And the "right" to contraceptives not only didn't make the list at all, neither did a "right" to ANY goods or services because there is no right to the services of another human being. And neither did any "right" for some groups to use the power of government to force fellow Americans to provide or pay for any goods and services against their will for the benefit of ANYONE. My rights aren't for sale and I am no government owned slave even if we have a lot of morons who would not only gladly sell off their rights so cheaply and be shackled -but gladly sell off my own and those of my children as well.

This isn't about birth control pills -you want them, go buy them. I have no right to stop you from buying them even if I were so inclined. But it is not the right of anyone to demand that I foot the bill for them, that I provide, pay for or help you get them. Your right to buy those pills doesn't suddenly place a burden on ME to help you get them! Your REAL rights never creates a burden on me to help you exercise that right. It only places a burden on government to not fuck with that right. Substitute ANY other good or service for "birth control pills" and you don't have the right to force me to foot the bill for those for you either -not even if you decide to call it another "right" first so you can pretend you have the greater right to use the power of government to force me against my will to provide it. The rights of another person never comes at the expense of MINE. Government never GIVES us our rights -it is not the source of our rights although the left wants us all to believe that government is not only our MASTER, it is our SAVIOR and the source of our rights as GOVERNMENT defines them. In reality we need to exercise constant vigilance in order to protect our rights FROM government. This is just one more example in a long list of examples why we do.

 

[Lakhota]

I'm sure Obama knows he's on the right side of the Constitution.

The Contraception First Amendment Fight Is Not About Freedom of Religion | MyFDL

David Boies on the Constitutionality of the birth control mandate:

Constitutionality of birth control mandate - Video on msnbc.com

 

[JoeB131]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion. It's called charity, or social justice, if you prefer. They don't make any money doing it, in fact they spend BILLIONS. Exercising their religion.

NOT 'running a business', NOT 'making a buck', but EXERCISING their religious dictates.

And helping millions of poor people in the process.

WHY would you or anyone else want to put them in a position to STOP?

Horseshit. The Catholic operate those things because there's money to be made and fat government contracts to be milked. It's about the money.

Which I have no problem with. But like any other business, they should comply with the law, and this is a pretty reasonable one.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion.

The free exercise clause is not an absolute, and it does not cover actions that are not religious by their nature, such as operating hospitals or schools. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are completely ignorant regarding the limits of first amendment protects and the expansive case law that goes back well more than a century.

 

[California Girl]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion. It's called charity, or social justice, if you prefer. They don't make any money doing it, in fact they spend BILLIONS. Exercising their religion.

NOT 'running a business', NOT 'making a buck', but EXERCISING their religious dictates.

And helping millions of poor people in the process.

WHY would you or anyone else want to put them in a position to STOP?

Horseshit. The Catholic operate those things because there's money to be made and fat government contracts to be milked. It's about the money.

Which I have no problem with. But like any other business, they should comply with the law, and this is a pretty reasonable one.

Again, how much money does the Catholic Church 'make' from their charities?

Be specific.

 

[JoeB131]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion. It's called charity, or social justice, if you prefer. They don't make any money doing it, in fact they spend BILLIONS. Exercising their religion.

NOT 'running a business', NOT 'making a buck', but EXERCISING their religious dictates.

And helping millions of poor people in the process.

WHY would you or anyone else want to put them in a position to STOP?

Horseshit. The Catholic operate those things because there's money to be made and fat government contracts to be milked. It's about the money.

Which I have no problem with. But like any other business, they should comply with the law, and this is a pretty reasonable one.

Again, how much money does the Catholic Church 'make' from their charities?

Be specific.

Why? No seriously, fucking why?

I could pull up all sorts of figures that show the greedy bastards are making all sorts of money, you can pull up bullshit numbers about how generous they are selling indulgences...

But it's a business. Too bad we don't apply the consumer fraud laws.

Then I'd sue them to prove Uncle Asshole really got into heaven.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I haven't seen one person on the other side of this debate that can explain how this is not a 1st Amendment issue

It's very simple, it's a first amendment issue only inasmuch as this issue goes beyond the limits of the first amendment. That's what you're not getting. There are limits to what the constitution protects as freedom of religion. The first amendment is not a hall pass that excuses people or groups from any law whatsoever that they don't like. The first amendment prohibits enacting laws that would specifically target religious groups or behavior of a distinctly religious nature. It does not prohibit enacting laws that are generally applicable to everyone, or that prohibit or require behavior that is not of a distinctly religious nature.

As the Supreme Court explained in Reynolds, such a view of the first amendment is clearly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It would allow every person to become a law unto themselves, and all form for government would cease to exist. It's inconceivable that the Founders created the federal government just so that it, and every level of government below it, would be instantly dissolved upon a person's claim of religious belief.

 

[California Girl]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion.

The free exercise clause is not an absolute, and it does not cover actions that are not religious by their nature, such as operating hospitals or schools. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are completely ignorant regarding the limits of first amendment protects and the expansive case law that goes back well more than a century.

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

 

[G.T.]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion.

The free exercise clause is not an absolute, and it does not cover actions that are not religious by their nature, such as operating hospitals or schools. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are completely ignorant regarding the limits of first amendment protects and the expansive case law that goes back well more than a century.

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

It's not a charity when you chaRGE.

 

[JoeB131]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion.

The free exercise clause is not an absolute, and it does not cover actions that are not religious by their nature, such as operating hospitals or schools. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are completely ignorant regarding the limits of first amendment protects and the expansive case law that goes back well more than a century.

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

Please point out where Jesus ever said anything about contraception.

 

[JoeB131]

The free exercise clause is not an absolute, and it does not cover actions that are not religious by their nature, such as operating hospitals or schools. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are completely ignorant regarding the limits of first amendment protects and the expansive case law that goes back well more than a century.

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

It's not a charity when you chaRGE.

Exactly. I ran up $50,000 of bills at the Catholic Hospitals between 2006 and 2008, some of which I paid, some of which my insurance did. (Oddly, the company got rid of people who ran up medical bills in 2008) and the Catholics were happy to take my dirty, dirty atheist money.

It's about the money.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

No, just because a charity is operated by a religious group, or because their behavior is dictated by their religion, does not make the behavior religious by nature. This is the very type of mentality that Reynolds flatly rejected. If a person's religion required human sacrifice, should the government feel bound by the first amendment to not interfere? If a woman feels religiously obligated to burn herself upon her husband's grave, should the government feel bound by the first amendment to not interfere? If such a view of the first amendment were to be adopted, then one would have to believe that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to allow every single person to be a law unto him/her self, such that the government created by the founders could be dissolved as easily as a person uttering the name of God.

The fact that you do not understand these limitations on the first amendment goes to show that you are completely ignorant about the matter. These are not matters of opinion. These are well established and explicit principles found in over a century's worth of case law. Nowhere, and I mean absolutely NOWHERE, in our history has the first amendment been ever perceived in the way you're claiming. Even the very conservative Justice Scalia flatly rejects such ideas as you're trying to promulgate.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The free exercise clause is not an absolute, and it does not cover actions that are not religious by their nature, such as operating hospitals or schools. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are completely ignorant regarding the limits of first amendment protects and the expansive case law that goes back well more than a century.

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

Please point out where Jesus ever said anything about contraception.

I'd like to see where he said anything about hospitals.

 

[G.T.]

It's also worth pointing out that people actually make salaries at not for profits. Just saying, because I just KNOW there's gotta be people here too dumb to know that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Of course they oppose it. They don't need contraceptives to fondle little boys.

Conservatives will side with anyone to destroy our President...

 

[California Girl]

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

It's not a charity when you chaRGE.

Exactly. I ran up $50,000 of bills at the Catholic Hospitals between 2006 and 2008, some of which I paid, some of which my insurance did. (Oddly, the company got rid of people who ran up medical bills in 2008) and the Catholics were happy to take my dirty, dirty atheist money.

It's about the money.

That's because you could afford to pay. They treat many who cannot. If it was a 'profit making' enterprise, it wouldn't cost the Church $5.7 billion a year. But it does.

The Catholics treated you, and you paid. Others don't pay. Such is life. Get over it or use another hospital - we promise not to give a shit.