Since when does the Catholic Church have the right to force their religious values...

[Neotrotsky]

I understand that Catholics teach that artificial contraception is considered to be intrinsically evil.

But isn't abortion considered to be far worse?

So, if a prohibition on contraception ultimately leads to more abortions, where is the greater good?

There is no "prohibition"

Yes that is the Planned Parent falsehood, they push, less abortions, we are "saving" children, but.....

A January 2011 fact sheet by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute
listed all the reasons that women who have had an abortion give for their
unexpected pregnancy, and not one of them is lack of access to contraception

54 percent of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method,
46 percent who had not used contraception
33 percent had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy
32 percent had had concerns about contraceptive methods
26 percent had had unexpected sex
1 percent had been forced to have sex.

Not one fraction of 1 percent said they got pregnant because they lacked access to contraception
Guttmacher reported that only 8 percent of women who undergo abortions have never used a method of birth control.

Guttmacher statistics were the same, a decade ago.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I understand that Catholics teach that artificial contraception is considered to be intrinsically evil.

But isn't abortion considered to be far worse?

So, if a prohibition on contraception ultimately leads to more abortions, where is the greater good?

Pope John Paul II answered your question....

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

Evangelium vitae - Ioannes Paulus PP. II - Encyclical Letter (1995.03.25)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Apparently, the Catholic church thinks it can deny their non Catholic employees THEIR religious values.

What's next? Lie detector tests to see if their employees are using birth control?

So don't work for them. What's the problem?

Maybe the non Catholic employees should file a class action law suit against their discriminatory employer.

Maybe the Catholic Church will file a civil rights lawsuit against our totalitarian government.

 

[del]

Not according the CRA which bars employers who serve the public from discriminating based on religion.

We're aware of that. But we will not violate our conscience because your Asshole in the Oval says we have to. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

He'll fold. Like a pack of cards. He picked the wrong religion to piss off.

You have a conscience??? There you go exaggerating again!!

have another donut

 

[Cecilie1200]

The way i see it, the catholic church is not forcing anyone to do anything.

1)No one if forcing anyone to work for them.

2)They are not offering something that they do not believe in..... not offering somethings not forcing anything onto anyone.

Again, the problem is the mandate. If the mandate goes, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

However, the Catholic Church wants preferential treatment. For instance, if the Catholic Church decided to open up a auto-repair shop (with government funding) and then claim that Obamacare violates their rights and therefore should be exempt, should they? The simple answer is no.

The Church is exempt, not their secular organizations.

If the auto shop is run by the church.... .... don't work for the church if you dont like what they are offering or not offering in terms of benefits.

I have news for these liberals. If I run an auto-repair shop, and I have a religious objection to birth control, then I should be exempt on First Amendment grounds. The Constitution, after all, is intended to protect the rights of INDIVIDUAL Americans, not merely organizations and institutions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So don't work for them. What's the problem?

Maybe the non Catholic employees should fill a class action law suit against their discriminatory employer.

What are they discriminating against?

Apparently, the problem is that they AREN'T discriminating. Instead of hiring only Catholics, they're hiring anyone who can do a good job. If they started hiring only observant Catholics, THEN the government would be chasing after them, screaming about THAT.

Basically, the only way Christians can get this government to leave them alone is if they break off all contact with the world and huddle in their churches, praying quietly so there's no risk of passersby hearing them through the window by accident.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Apparently, the Catholic church thinks it can deny their non Catholic employees THEIR religious values.

What's next? Lie detector tests to see if their employees are using birth control?

So don't work for them. What's the problem?

For fuck's sake, I am like a broke record player.

Stop serving the public. According the CRA, which was passed by a majority of Republicans, you cannot discriminate employment who serve the public based on religious views.

Hey, Coward. Are you aware that your ignorant suggestion is ALSO a violation of their First Amendment rights, since part of the Catholic Church's method of "exercising their religion" is to perform charitable acts in the community?

Oh, sorry, that's a question, and we both know you don't have the sack to answer those.

 

[Chris]

Another attack by the religious right on women's reproductive rights.

The Catholic Church is more interested in preventing contraception than preventing pedophillia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the auto shop is run by the church.... .... don't work for the church if you dont like what they are offering or not offering in terms of benefits.

Don't serve the public using public funds all while violating the Civil Rights Acts.

The arrogance is overwhelming.

Catholic hospitals are private intuitions. No one is forcing anyone to walk into a catholic hospital.... they are more then welcome to go elsewhere for their care.

No one is being discriminated against. They are not offering specific services.

Seriously, who doesn't know that if you want specific services, you don't go to St. Whosiwhatsis Hospital to get it? That whole "Saint" thing should be a dead giveaway, for crying out loud.

And who, by the same token, doesn't know when they apply for a job at St. Whosiwhatsis Hospital that they're applying to work for the Catholic Church? It's not like they're being coy and subtle about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't serve the public using public funds all while violating the Civil Rights Acts.

The arrogance is overwhelming.

Catholic hospitals are private intuitions. No one is forcing anyone to walk into a catholic hospital.... they are more then welcome to go elsewhere for their care.

No one is being discriminated against. They are no offering specific services.

They are institutions that serve the public.

Play your semantic games all you want, I am not biting.

In other words, Valox the Coward only makes blank, unproven assertions. Any attempt to discuss the premises of these assertions will be dismissed as "games", lest Valox the Coward be forced to actually answer a question at some point, or even worse, defend his assertions.

Hey, Chickenshit. You ever get around to telling us where in the Constitution the right to free exercise of religion is limited by "unless you're an institution serving the public", or are you still running like a scared little girl from that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is what I am asking, but have not received an answer.

Your comment was not a question, it was a declaration. Perhaps that's the reason you're not receiving an answer.

Fair enough, and to clear up confusion.

According to the CRA, employers who serve the public cannot discriminate based on religious views. Therefore, arguments that say don't work here don't fly.

What don't you understand about the CRA?

Why you seem to think it's relevant would be one thing not understood about it. Who is the Catholic Church discriminating against, for religious beliefs or anything else?

What I also don't understand is why you're asking, "What don't you understand", when everyone knows you're too cowardly to explain or back up anything you say.

By the way, you ever get around to telling us where the Constitution limits religious freedom based on "serving the public"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

All this hullabaloo is about treating employees equally. Catholics who run secular organizations want preferential treatments and not be treated equally.

You are not arguing for equally, but for preferential treatment. Hence, this ruckus.

You are failing... Badly...

If the church was giving certain groups a tangible item or benefit and excluding others, then you'd have a case...

NOT providing something to ALL employees is NOT discrimination...

You can play all the word games you like, but we'll just laugh at you...

The Church is exempt from the mandate.

Please show me where Obamacare is forcing Catholic priests to provide birth control for nuns?

This from Mr. "Please Stop With the Strawmen". All that cowardice has obviously rotted Chickenshit's brains.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would support this, but for different reasons. Not because of their fabricated hysteria of their rights being violated, but because the federal mandate is wrong.

Fabricated hysteria? Hey, I'm not Catholic but why should they (a) be forced to offer a product, (b) be forced to offer a product that provides services that are specifically banned by their beliefs?

The Catholic Church is exempt, but that does not give Catholics the right to open up a business, get state aid, serve the public, and then proclaim that their freedoms are being violated over Obamacare.

What your argument is claiming is that Christian Scientists who open up a tanning salon, who serve the public, and hire Non Christian Scientists should be exempt from offering insulin coverage to their diabetic employee via the mandate since it goes against their religious views.

No, Chickenshit, the First Amendment gives Catholics the right to exercise their religious freedom in every aspect of their lives, including running their businesses . . . unless you can sack up and show me where the First Amendment limits this in any way.

By the way, shitforbrains, Christian Scientists probably don't offer health insurance AT ALL. They don't believe in ANY medical care, not just insulin shots. Duuuhhh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Prediction: The Catholic Church will drop all health insurance for employees.

Prediction: Obama will wake up, smell the coffee, and give the Church what it is asking for.

Prediction: he wont pull this on muslims.

Not sure how many institutions outside of their own mosques Islamic sects actually operate. Also pretty sure they don't generally hire non-Muslims.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fabricated hysteria? Hey, I'm not Catholic but why should they (a) be forced to offer a product, (b) be forced to offer a product that provides services that are specifically banned by their beliefs?

The Catholic Church is exempt, but that does not give Catholics the right to open up a business, get state aid, serve the public, and then proclaim that their freedoms are being violated over Obamacare.

What your argument is claiming is that Christian Scientists who open up a tanning salon, who serve the public, and hire Non Christian Scientists should be exempt from offering insulin coverage to their diabetic employee via the mandate.

I agree... a private person running a business... is NOT the church... and they are out of luck.

A catholic hospital.... is run by the church.

I'm having trouble understanding why a private person should be "out of luck". I don't remember the First Amendment speaking only about "free exercise" just for churches.

 

[oreo]

...on their non Catholic employees?

Churches are exempt from the ruling.

However, religious institutions that employ and serve people outside their faith -- hospitals, elementary schools, universities -- have to comply with the requirement to cover birth control if they offer health insurance coverage for employees. That means such Catholic institutions, which employ and serve wide swaths of non-Catholics across the country, will not be exempt, despite church teachings against use of contraception.

Obama Administration's New Contraception Rule Puts Key Catholic Vote at Risk

What gives the Catholic church (or any church, for that matter) the right to force their religious convictions on employees who aren't even catholic?

I think you're missing the point here. This is in violation of the U.S. Constitution--"separation between church and state." Meaning the Federal Government should not get involved with CHURCH issues. It is strickly against Catholic policy--even though I imagine millions of Catholic's use contraceptives--and go against the church teachings.

It's the idea if the Federal Government can force an organization to supply something that they believe is morally wrong--then what can't the Federal Government force you to do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...on their non Catholic employees?

Churches are exempt from the ruling.

However, religious institutions that employ and serve people outside their faith -- hospitals, elementary schools, universities -- have to comply with the requirement to cover birth control if they offer health insurance coverage for employees. That means such Catholic institutions, which employ and serve wide swaths of non-Catholics across the country, will not be exempt, despite church teachings against use of contraception.

Obama Administration's New Contraception Rule Puts Key Catholic Vote at Risk

What gives the Catholic church (or any church, for that matter) the right to force their religious convictions on employees who aren't even catholic?

I think you're missing the point here. This is in violation of the U.S. Constitution--"separation between church and state." Meaning the Federal Government should not get involved with CHURCH issues. It is strickly against Catholic policy--even though I imagine millions of Catholic's use contraceptives--and go against the church teachings.

It's the idea if the Federal Government can force an organization to supply something that they believe is morally wrong--then what can't the Federal Government force you to do?

It is not against Catholic policies. 20 states have similar laws and Catholic businesses are already complying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, yes they do. We have laws against Peyote, but the religious practices of certain tribes in New Mexico that involve its use are allowed because of the First Amendment.

Your so-called "fact" is easily refutable.

Can the Indians open a peyote store in your local mall?

You have a special talent for stupid non sequiturs.

Peyote possession is against the law, unless you belong to certain Indian tribes because it's used in their religious practices. That proves your claim wrong.

End of story.

I said, you ignorant fuck,

Churches do not get to run businesses outside US law simply because they have a piece of dogma that conflicts with that law.

Using peyote in a religious ceremony is not running a fucking business.

You must be the dumbest fuck on this forum.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is not free access. People are WORKING and receiving compensation for that WORK, some of that being healthcare coverage.

They receive whatever their employer agrees to, and not one thing more.

Except that you're not allowed to discriminate. No one is asking the RCC to do anything, except provide insurance. The people backing their position seem to be on the wrong side of the First Amendment fight, IMO.

Where the hell did discrimination come into this? The Catholic Church is not discriminating against anyone. They do not want to provide a service that violates their beliefs. Period. The other side thinks it is all right for them to be forced into the corner.

Another attack by the religious right on women's reproductive rights.

The Catholic Church is more interested in preventing contraception than preventing pedophillia.

You are an idiot. No where did they do any such thing whatsoever. They simply do not want to be a part of it. The employees still have full rights to do whatever they damn well please. You simply do not want to afford the religious institution that same right.

Can the Indians open a peyote store in your local mall?

You have a special talent for stupid non sequiturs.

Peyote possession is against the law, unless you belong to certain Indian tribes because it's used in their religious practices. That proves your claim wrong.

End of story.

I said, you ignorant fuck,

Churches do not get to run businesses outside US law simply because they have a piece of dogma that conflicts with that law.

Using peyote in a religious ceremony is not running a fucking business.

You must be the dumbest fuck on this forum.

That US law is the problem though because it is utter bullshit. It requires them to provide birth control yet sores right over other medical needs like hearing aids as already covered in this very thread (and the point went unanswered). Why in the hell is BC a mandated service when all those others are not? By what bullshit right does the government decide you MUST cover simple and cheap pills for women and then glaze over actual medical needs that are damn near unobtainable for people that actually need help. It is partisan bullshit agenda pushing and you should wake the hell up to it. The Catholic institutions WANT to provide medical coverage for their employees. They are actively trying to cover them. Then daddy government comes in and says hay, you can't make sure that your employees are healthy and have good coverage unless you buy into MY philosophy and cover what WE want covered, even if it goes against your deeply held convictions. This is a classic case of government stepping WAY over their bounds to force people into doing something they have absolutely ZERO right doing. There is no defense whatsoever that you can put up that puts BC as a required coverage and still ignores all the other procedures that are simply not required.

 

[saveliberty]

This is not free access. People are WORKING and receiving compensation for that WORK, some of that being healthcare coverage.

They receive whatever their employer agrees to, and not one thing more.

Except that you're not allowed to discriminate. No one is asking the RCC to do anything, except provide insurance. The people backing their position seem to be on the wrong side of the First Amendment fight, IMO.

Who is discriminating konradv? Does anyone working for the RCC get contraceptives covered in their plan? Keep throwing around those big words you don't know the meaning of.