Is Obama Really this Stupid?

[Full-Auto]

I don't 'excuse' it either. What I can do is recognize it for what it is. An issue.... but one that is far worse in other professions. For those who can't do basic math.... 400,000 (total number of priests within the Catholic Church worldwide).... of which 0.03% have ever been accused of child abuse (not necessarily sexual abuse - and that figure comes from law enforcement backed, independent academic research)... that's 120 priests. Do I dismiss that as 'nothing of importance'? Absolutely not. That's 120 too many for me - and yes, the Church was wrong to protect its priests... but, frankly, unless people are rational about it, there is no point taking them seriously.

CG I was raised Catholic, had a cousin that was a priest, I remember his visit to my grandparents right after seminary. I was a smart ass even then. He was taking to long in the bathroom and I asked if he was saying mass.

I would hope they are cleaning things up and the members no longer expect that type of behavior from the clergy. Back in that era which was the 60s for me. Other prejudices were strong. My Mom and Dad divorced.

Do you know the theme to Black Sheep Squadron?

The Church changed its policy towards priests quite a few years ago. Priests know they can expect absolutely no assistance from the Church if they commit any kind of abuse. But the fact remains that, out of 400,000 priests, 120 stand accused. The fact remains that there are more teachers, more children's entertainers, more youth workers, more sports coaches accused of child abuse than there are priests. So, why the singling out of priests? Bigotry? I'm fine with that - just as long as one recognizes that one is a bigot.

Why are you under the impression I have singled them out? My comments came from direct experience supporting a similar experience. You seem extremely defensive. Relax

 

[California Girl]

CG I was raised Catholic, had a cousin that was a priest, I remember his visit to my grandparents right after seminary. I was a smart ass even then. He was taking to long in the bathroom and I asked if he was saying mass.

I would hope they are cleaning things up and the members no longer expect that type of behavior from the clergy. Back in that era which was the 60s for me. Other prejudices were strong. My Mom and Dad divorced.

Do you know the theme to Black Sheep Squadron?

The Church changed its policy towards priests quite a few years ago. Priests know they can expect absolutely no assistance from the Church if they commit any kind of abuse. But the fact remains that, out of 400,000 priests, 120 stand accused. The fact remains that there are more teachers, more children's entertainers, more youth workers, more sports coaches accused of child abuse than there are priests. So, why the singling out of priests? Bigotry? I'm fine with that - just as long as one recognizes that one is a bigot.

Why are you under the impression I have singled them out? My comments came from direct experience supporting a similar experience. You seem extremely defensive. Relax

I'm offended, as a Catholic and as an American, that other Americans accept an attack on our First Amendment rights.... I don't see the funny side of it.

I'm tired of ignorant people making ignorant, baseless accusations about my faith. We are not a perfect religion - no religion is... but we do far more for this country than any other single group other than the US Government itself. We ask nothing from anyone in return. And we are ridiculed and accused of bullshit.

Very few people on this forum seem to actually understand what the issue is. I find that sad... but unsurprising, since many people appear to get their opinion from the media.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't like the insurance offered by the Church, don't work for them. Plain and simple.

Do NOT think that you can coerce the Church into financing a practice or procedure that contradicts their faith, that is a fight you CANNOT WIN.

Not really. You can't use faith as an excuse to circumvent the law. Otherwise the Rastafarians would have a thriving business selling pot.

If the law says that family planning options HAVE to be offered as part of health insurance, then the Church really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And I wish the Catholic Church had shown this much concern when their priests were molesting altar boys.

You have that backwards, there is nothing anywhere that denies me the privileged of using faith, reason, or even emotion to circumvent the law. The civil rights movement used conscience to circumvent the law, and won.

The Constitution, on the other hand, specifically prevents the government from using the law to circumvent faith, which explains why the decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC last month was unanimous in its holding that the government could not tell a church that at employee at a school is not covered under the ministerial exception, nor could they argue that churches do not actually have a ministerial exception.

By the way, that decision came down in January of this year, and was signed onto by both Sotomayor and Kagan.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and they are more than free to practice them. They just can't impose them on other people.

im pretty sure this thread is about Obama imposing something on them.....

Well, I'm sure that's what Boro wants you to believe, but nope. It's about them complying with the law, just like everyone else has to.

The law says you have to provide the option of family planning if you are offering a health plan. That seems pretty reasonable and pretty fair to me, to be honest. Saving the preaching and the moralizing for the pulpit, where I have the option of ignoring you.

The law says nothing of the sort, the requirement you are talking about came from HHS and is approved of by Obama. Didn't you read the OP. or the article it linked to?

 

[California Girl]

im pretty sure this thread is about Obama imposing something on them.....

Well, I'm sure that's what Boro wants you to believe, but nope. It's about them complying with the law, just like everyone else has to.

The law says you have to provide the option of family planning if you are offering a health plan. That seems pretty reasonable and pretty fair to me, to be honest. Saving the preaching and the moralizing for the pulpit, where I have the option of ignoring you.

The law says nothing of the sort, the requirement you are talking about came from HHS and is approved of by Obama. Didn't you read the OP. or the article it linked to?

There is no point using logic and reason with the illogical and unreasonable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well except for the little fact that you leave the church, they don't come and say you have to return, nor do you need to contribute jack shit to an institution you fear or hate or both.

Except that if the Church then turns around and hires me to do a secular job for them, they really have no business trying to impose their beliefs on me.

It's a contract between employer and employee. IN this case, the government is regulating the contract.

I mean, how far do you really want to take the Churches doing this.

If my employer is a Jehovah's Witness, does he have the right to insist my insurance won't cover a blood transfusion?

(Someone asked me to be a Jehovah's Witness once, but I told them I didn't see the accident.)

Conversely, if you are a Rastafarian, do you have a right to get insurance that will pay for medical marijuana even thought the federal government (foolishly, IMO) has called that a federal crime.

Why not? You want to impose yours on them, what makes you special?

 

[sealybobo]

How, pray tell, can a supposed Constitutional Law Professor be so oblivious to what the Constitution says?

Would you agree that if we had a panal of Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucenich, Ron Paul, Newt, Mitt & Obama that they would each probably have a different understanding/believe about what is and isn't Constitutional?

Are you a Ron Paul guy? Then you probably don't agree 100% with Romney on what is and isn't Constitutional.

Agreed? Unless you are suggesting that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are 100% in agreement with their enterpretations of what is Constitutional?

Interpretation my friend.

 

[sealybobo]

And haven't some conservative judges ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and others have ruled the other way?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[...]In reality, the rule, part of the Affordable Care Act, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith. But religious groups contend that its conscience protections are too narrow.

A closer examination of the Obama provision, however, reveals that the conscience language closely mirrors the existing provisions in at least five states:

– OBAMA: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an organization that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(4)The organization is a nonprofit organization

– NEW YORK: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(a) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(b) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(c) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity is a nonprofit organization

– CALIFORNIA: For purposes of this section, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(D) The entity is a nonprofit organization

– MICHIGAN: For our purposes, a “religious employer” is an entity for which all the following are true:
(a) The entity is a nonprofit organization
(b) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(c) The entity primarily employs people who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.

– OREGON: A “religious employer” is an employer:
(a) Whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values;
(b) That primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the employer;
(c) That primarily serves persons who share the religious tenets of the employer; and
(d) That is a nonprofit organization

Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost.

Obama Reproductive Health Reg Mirrors State Conscience Protections

I picked one example off your list, California, and found that the requirements are new, and under challenge in court. Should we check the rest of the,, or can I simply assume this is the typical Think Progress hack piece?

 

[Steelplate]

This just proves that Liberals aren't interested in "choice". It's their way or the highway. Obama will never win this fight with the Catholic Church. Obama, Pelosi and Reid sre such a joke.

Oh... we're all about CHOICE... it's the Conservatives that have an issue with Choice...especially when it pertains to OTHER people's sins.

So the left see the beautiful acts of making and conceiving a baby a sin? Some of you fuckers really do disgust me.
Which would be the more serious sin to you?
1) Creating a baby.
2) Murdering it because you did not want it or want the responsibility of having one.

Nice spin asshole... The left have come to the realization that accidents fucking happen, and unwanted babies who the right want to let fucking starve is much less merciful than having them never be born... If it's the woman's CHOICE.

You've yet to prove it's murder, so..fuck you on that one. That's your interpretation... but once again... "the right" is always right(in their eyes). They are legends in their own minds.

To answer your question...they are both potentially sins. The sin of Fornication(having immoral sex..ie...not being married) and murdering a baby are both sins in God's eyes... BTW...Pride is a sin, vanity is a sin, Envy is a sin, Greed is a sin... funny how you guys don't give a shit about those sins though... But I assure you, God does.

 

[Steelplate]

This just proves that Liberals aren't interested in "choice". It's their way or the highway. Obama will never win this fight with the Catholic Church. Obama, Pelosi and Reid sre such a joke.

Oh... we're all about CHOICE... it's the Conservatives that have an issue with Choice...especially when it pertains to OTHER people's sins.

Try thinking for a change. If you give the government the power to dictate to Catholics that they have to accept birth control you also give the government the power to tell you that you cannot use an animated GIF as an avatar.

Wow....Logical...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm disappointed to hear you say "Democrat party." You're generally above that sort of thing.

And my understanding is that it's a statement that "Catholic run institutions" are subject to the same regulation as other businesses if a certain amount of employees are not in fact Catholic.

It's also my understanding that churches are exempt.

But their employer is the Catholic Church - and birth control is against our religion - particularly abortion - which is abhorrent to us. It is, to Catholics, murder.

not everything owned and run by the catholic church is a religious endeavor. my suggestion on this one would be some compromise. i think the intentions here were good, not "stupid".

What a truly evil fuck you are. I though you were just a stupid twatwaffle, but you're genuinely fucking evil

 

[Harry Dresden]

and they are more than free to practice them. They just can't impose them on other people.

im pretty sure this thread is about Obama imposing something on them.....

By virtue of that logic, any law in existence is someone 'imposing' something on someone... Which I guess it sort of is, but is that really the point?

why are laws made?......and who are they for?......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That the Church is being damned stupid trying to ban fam0ily planning coverage for it's side businesses when in fact, their own membership isn't behind them on this one.

Then the real question I need to ask is why is the Government in the business of "family planning" (abortions, birth control)? I say they need to stay out of it. The church should be able to do what they want in this regard. It really doesn't matter what their membership does.

EXCEPT- that the Church accepts payments from the government and tax breaks and serves clients that the government sends them.

If the CHurch entirely self-insured AND only employed Church members and were only engaged in church business, then you might have a stronger case as to why they could make their own rules.

but they don't.

So do a lot of other organizations. Strange thing, none of them are required to ignore their core principles in order to help people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Real Simple... Catholic based Hospitals don't want to take part in the AHA? Fine... No Federal funds...saves the taxpayers money, I guess.

In places where gov't is in the hole, and the economy is down, these hospitals provide services that are hard to find. Know of one man in Harrisburg, PA that his family found him lying in his own filth, appeared to have been that way for hours. The doctor told them they are so underfunded and understaffed that he was concerned that his patients were not even being "fed".

Yeah, Obamacare! Wipe the medical system, only the strong survive! Healthcare is only for the healthy! You can pat yourself on the back now, another service will be denied!

Don't forget that state funded hospitals in LA have been dumping patients on skid row to avoid treating them. Has anyone ever heard of Catholic hospitals doing anything like that?

 

[Intense]

Then the real question I need to ask is why is the Government in the business of "family planning" (abortions, birth control)? I say they need to stay out of it. The church should be able to do what they want in this regard. It really doesn't matter what their membership does.

EXCEPT- that the Church accepts payments from the government and tax breaks and serves clients that the government sends them.

If the CHurch entirely self-insured AND only employed Church members and were only engaged in church business, then you might have a stronger case as to why they could make their own rules.

but they don't.

So do a lot of other organizations. Strange thing, none of them are required to ignore their core principles in order to help people.

If there is one thing Government is good at it's changing the rules while playing with other peoples money and getting most to bark like trained seals.

 

[Harry Dresden]

and they are more than free to practice them. They just can't impose them on other people.

im pretty sure this thread is about Obama imposing something on them.....

Well, I'm sure that's what Boro wants you to believe, but nope. It's about them complying with the law, just like everyone else has to.

The law says you have to provide the option of family planning if you are offering a health plan. That seems pretty reasonable and pretty fair to me, to be honest. Saving the preaching and the moralizing for the pulpit, where I have the option of ignoring you.

if the title of the thread and the link provided,indicates its about Obama about to give his ok to impose something on a Religious organization.....then thats what the thread is about.....

 

[Steelplate]

This just proves that Liberals aren't interested in "choice". It's their way or the highway. Obama will never win this fight with the Catholic Church. Obama, Pelosi and Reid sre such a joke.

Oh... we're all about CHOICE... it's the Conservatives that have an issue with Choice...especially when it pertains to OTHER people's sins.

Where is the "choice" in Obamacare?

Well... let's see... the HealthCare industry...Hospitals, Med/Tech, Big Pharma, the Insurance Companies fucked your choice over for you. Everyone was out to get insanely rich off of sick people and it got so out of hand that normal everyday people can barely afford their coverage.

But, that's what happened with the banks, with multinational corporations and Wall Street....everyone trying to make a killing as fast as they can without regard to the repercussions to our Nation. In truth? If you support that agenda... you have no one to blame but yourself...and the "so called" free market.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a perfect example of why we need health care to be government sponsored.

There is no hospital or clinic in the US that doesn't get government funding.

The way to keep women down is to take away their reproductive rights.

Catholic so called Charities have no problem giving men "Viagra".

The real answer is to TAX all churches and religious institution. They must pay for the right to push their mystical and occult beliefs and their strange agenda if they are going to get involved in the public arena.

Even if their health plans do cover Viagra, something no one has actually proven as far as I can see, Viagra is not contraception.

 

[Steelplate]

Libs will go out of their way not to offend muslims, see the treatment of UBL's body, they don't mind crapping on Christians when they get the chance....it's all because they know muslims will blow things up when pissed off.

Only ignorant assholes like you. Your side is the ONLY ones bringing up Islam Nice Strawman too bad it doesn't hold water... well, maybe it does in your borderline paranoid schizophrenic minds.