Because the First Amendment, we all know, is meant only to protect the rights of the press to advocate for progressive causes. The rest is just two-bit bitterclingerness that is part and parcel of the flawed document that is our Constitution. CNS:
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says there are no “constitutional rights issues” involved in a regulation issued by the administration that requires all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and Catholic cannot be involved in them, the regulation–in combination with the Obamacare mandate that all Americans buy health insurance–will force American Catholics to choose between following the federal regulation or following the teachings of their church.
“I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” Carney said when asked at today’s White House briefing about the regulation.
“The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventative services,” Carney told reporters.
Last September, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the then-proposed regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.” At that time, the bishops submitted comments on the regulation to the Department of Health and Human Services arguing that the regulation violated the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion and urged the administration to rescind it.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced on Jan. 20, that the administration was moving ahead with the regulation–which will take effect on Aug. 1. She granted a one-year extension to religiously affiliated non-profit groups so, as she put it, they could “adapt” to the regulation.
On Sunday, in Catholic churches around the country, priests read letters from their local bishops declaring the law an unconstitutional attack on the religious liberty of Catholics and calling on Catholics to oppose the regulation and fight to have it rescinded.
[…]
At one point in Tuesday’s press briefing, Carney said: “I would also just note that our robust partnerships with the Catholic Church and other communities of faith will continue.”
Last week, Bishop David Zubick, of Pittsburgh declared in a column published on his diocesan website that in following through on this regulation the Obama administration was telling Catholics “to Hell with you.”
The regulation includes an exemption for “religious” employers, but to qualify for the exemption an employer must primarily employ people of its own faith, primarily serve people of its own faith, and primarily be involved in inculcating the tenets of the faith. In their comments to HHS on the regulation, the Catholic bishops said this “religious” exemption was so narrow Jesus Himself would not qualify for it.
The secular progressives — the religious zealots of the left who hold the State as their god — will attempt to systematically destroy their competition through law and regulation and popular culture.
They are all in.
So. What are you prepared to do about it?
Thankfully, at least a few in the USCCB are willing to “do” the following: tell the Administration: “Come make us”.
YOU MUST OBEY ME. I AM THE GREAT OBAMA. I KNOW BEST.
In further healthcare-related moralizing freakouts: incoming!
The question is what are the Catholics willing to do about it, assuming that Congress doesn’t intervene here. SCOTUS has not been kind to Baracky’s interpretation of religious freedom. And I’ve got to say, this is a really stupid time for him to be sticking it to what is an increasingly progressive Catholic Church. Way to tell your base to go fuck themselves, B.
A little thought experiment, in case y’all hadn’t seen it yet.
At one point in Tuesday’s press briefing, Carney said: “I would also just note that our robust partnerships with the Catholic Church and other communities of faith will continue.”
Uh huh. Much like Vader’s robust partnership with Lando.
In speaking to the women at my church, they have expressed how difficult it is for them to pray for our president when he keeps kicking their beliefs in the shins. Me, I won’t pray for him, but rather offer the old blessing for the Tsar: “May the Lord bless and keep the Tsar(President)…far away from us.”
What are you prepared to do about it?
Give them the finger and laugh in their faces.
Translating this into a mode of action for the Catholic Church, I would encourage them to point to scriptural teachings that we are all “children of God,” and thus their operations fall under the “single-denomination” exemption.
“I have altered the deal, pray that I do not alter it further.” — someone vaguely authoritarian.
Besides, those mackeral snappin’, God-botherers are largely clinging to their antiquated view on marriage and all.
After all, where else will they take their franchise? I mean, no one else brings the liberation theology/social justice fairness like O!…
What is truly amazing is to talk to people in my parish here in NY, and see that very dilemma played out in their stammering disbelief over the O!ministration’s diktat that they have one year to get it together and discard their out-dated religious beliefs.
For the children…
“So. What are you prepared to do about it?”
Civilly Disobey
“The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventative services,” Carney told reporters.
emphasis added.
The administration may be on solid footing here, as a matter of Supreme Court jurisprudence. If I remember correctly, the current understanding of “free exercise” is that your free to exercise your beliefs, but the state has an interest in controlling how you act on those beliefs. I don’t remember the cases. One is about the religious use of Peyote by Native Americans decided by the Rehnquist court. The other is a case upholding the ban on polygamy from the 1890s I think.
Basically what the administration is going to argue is that if Catholic employees of Catholic employers really believe what they say they believe, then there’s no harm in requiring the employer to follow federal regulation and offer services those employees won’t use, and their beliefs aren’t infringed.
No idea if that’s what the Court will actually hold when the time comes.
As to what to do about it: The catacombs are starting to sound like the only option.
(I’d have suggested “instant baptism” stations at each entrance, but the Church doesn’t take that sort of thing lightly.)
Yea…Like in Illionois and Massachussettes…
Coming soon! to a Catholic hospital/adoption agency near you.
Rubio drops a bill in the hopper, FWIW.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012
leigh, try praying for a conversion. And maybe uncle Sam who has lost his way.
heh. I’m so going to Hell as I generally hope (not pray) for his plane to crash and burn.
So everyone who works at a Catholic hospital is Catholic? Huh. Learn something new every day.
What the church should do is declare they can no longer perform their charity missions in the US. Close the hospitals, close the adoption services, close the kitchens and missions and all. Just walk away. There are more needy people around the world, after all.
So everyone who works at a Catholic hospital is Catholic? Huh. Learn something new every day.
And in that particular instance, the administration will argue that the Church is unconstitutionally imposing it’s beliefs on employees. (Sure, they voluntarily took the job but…).
Actually what they’ll argue is that non-Catholic employees shouldn’t be denied coverage because it conflicts with Catholic beliefs.
So you may very well end up in the situation where if you want to work at a Catholic school/hospital, you’ll have to check the box, so to speak.
Which in turn leads to the religious discrimination reductio
These Leftists! wheels within wheels.
If I remember correctly, the current understanding of “free exercise” is that your free to exercise your beliefs, but the state has an interest in controlling how you act on those beliefs. I don’t remember the cases. One is about the religious use of Peyote by Native Americans decided by the Rehnquist court. The other is a case upholding the ban on polygamy from the 1890s I think.
The LDS Church relented to State pressure (not public pressure: the State was going to seize all our property, including the temples) in 1890, so the anti-polygamy law was earlier. (I should note that the church never requested that the state recognize the plural marriages; we just wanted to be left alone.)
That said, why does refusing to provide a particular service or product (freely available elsewhere) invoke State interest in controlling how one acts on religious beliefs?
This is like mandating that kosher and halal markets sell pork. People want to buy pork, they can buy it somewhere else. There’s no need for the State to intervene.
But of course we all know that. It’s only when a religious belief or practice questions a Leftist Sacrament that the State has to mandate conformity.
Everything in the State; nothing outside the State.
They did close their hospitals in Massachussettes Rob, and their adoption services in Illinois; or are in the process of closing the latter, since Illinois has told them to either serve gay couples or don’t do business.
I wonder how the bulk of Catholics in Illinois voted in 2008?
Actually what they’ll argue is that non-Catholic employees shouldn’t be denied coverage because it conflicts with Catholic beliefs.
Coverage [spit]!
Nobody can pay cash? Nobody can get another insurance plan?
Boy, is the insurance system effed up. Unhitch it from employment NOW, before they start mandating coverage.
then there’s no harm in requiring the employer to follow federal regulation and offer services those employees won’t use, and their beliefs aren’t infringed.
But the employer is Catholic, and so the state is forcing it to obey regulations against the employer’s beliefs.
They should flatly refuse to comply. I’d die on that hill.
And I probably will.
As a former Catholic this would all register much higher on the indignancy meter if the Catholic Church had an iota of moral authority left, but, sad to say, they don’t.
That necessary bit out of the way, this is profoundly stupid politics, no?
It alienates Catholics, many of whom are swing voters. Nor is there any real moral issue at stake here: No Gay rights marriage, no affirmative action support….nothing. They gain no votes they already weren’t going to have in their back pocket already–do you think the Pandagon/Marcotte set was going to pull for a Ron Paul third party tun?–and they are seen as offensively big-footing a group that is doing a lot of good.
Bob,
I was going to note those precise issues. All culture wars have costs and one of them is what we lose when somebody quits the fight.
a precursor
link
this is profoundly stupid politics, no?
No. For the reason Di outlined already.
11.
I take your point but large corporations, profit or non-profit, really don’t have the option of the choice you laid out. They must obey, in full, or face massive, structural damage.
That’s why there are civil disobedience exemptions for individuals; when they do it together–even though many do, from Rosa Parks to OWS, it can be considered RICO–there is massive downside risk.
This stuff matters.
I give the Left mad props, as the kids say, since they win on this stuff out of all proporrtion to their numbers and public support. Right is right, but skill is skill.
What the church should do is declare they can no longer perform their charity missions in the US. Close the hospitals, close the adoption services, close the kitchens and missions and all. Just walk away.
Thus eliminating one more pesky competitor for the State’s “charity” machine. All is proceeding according to plan…
As a former Catholic this would all register much higher on the indignancy meter if the Catholic Church had an iota of moral authority left, but, sad to say, they don’t.
So you’re saying that because Catholics “let” their hierarchy do horrific things, they deserve to be spit on by the federal government? Dude, that’s just harsh.
I’m not talking about the law per se, but the Supreme Court decision that upheld the law as Constitutional. Mormon’s are free to believe polygamy is okay, they just can’t act on that belief.
That’s the uptake as I remember it. It’s been almost twenty years since I had to read that decision.
Squid,
Not at all. I am saying that their arguments would carry much more weight (for the legislators who would take up their fight) if their leadership wasn’t morally complicit in a multi-generational pedersaty coverup.
If I’m a middle-of-the-road legislator where this is going on, what’s the utlility to me of defending the Catholic Church’s views and perogatives?
Their credibility is slightly north of Scientology at this point.
pedersaty=pedersasty.
I take your point but large corporations, profit or non-profit, really don’t have the option of the choice you laid out. They must obey, in full, or face massive, structural damage.
Those healthcare coverage mandates shouldn’t be there in the first place, nor should healthcare insurance be offered by employers.
It’s all the “fixes” to the original government distortion (wage controls led employers to offer healthcare insurance) that have given us this unmanageable behemoth: state coverage mandates, no selling across state lines, healthcare insurance that is actually a prepayment plan, packaging with employment instead of portability, and the general insulating of providers and consumers from price cues.
Tear all THAT out root and branch, too, and see what grows in its place.
Yeah, I know. Congress won’t do it.
The zombie apocalypse will.
what’s the utlility to me of defending the Catholic Church’s views and prerogatives?
What does it matter which church or organization it is? How about respecting the effing First Amendment, which prohibits congress from interfering in the free exercise of religion?
Even if the injured party were the Westboro Baptist Church we should stand up for the First Amendment.
Because first they came for the Catholics…
But the Catholics who fund the hospital shouldn’t be forced to pay for what they consider acts of murder.
Probably a better way to put it is that the State has no compelling interest in telling you what to believe, but, depending on the action, may have a compelling interest in preventing you from acting on your beliefs.
To give an extreme example: The high priest Mola Ram has no right to rip the beating heart out of your chest because he believes Ma Kali demands human sacrifice, even if you also believe it, and volunteered yourself as the sacrificial victim.
26.
Respectfully to you, I disagree. This is bigfooting. They’ll win, but make enemies where they could have had none.
2012 will be no 2008 for Obama. There are states he will not win this time and he will have it closer than he’d wish in others that he desperately needs. 10k-20k pissed off, energized and galvanized Catholics, who may not have been so resentful before, is not to sneeze at.
He gets his six big states, no doubt of it, but beyond that, Obama will have to fight like a SOB for everything.
This is a very big sop to the gender or radical-egalitarian Left. They will have to deliver massively to make this a fair trade for the POTUS.
Their skill is overrated. The real problem is that we have a team largely helmed by pussies.
As a lapsed Catholic, who has a hard time going to church because of how LIBERAL it has become … they gotta dance with the dude they came with.
I find this situation … ironic.
Fuck the First, eh, Roddy? Nice to know where you stand.
Trust them more than I do any “journalist”.
Because first they came for the Catholics…
Great minds think alike. I was just going to post this.
Roddy, I was just joshin’ ya. For what it’s worth, while a legislator or congresscritter might not spend a lot of time listening to a bishop that he considers tainted, he’s going to spend a lot of time listening to ten thousand angry Catholics lighting up his switchboard and swamping his office.
But in this instance you aren’t doing anything active other than following your conscience. “Sorry, we don’t have that stuff / those services here at the Catholic _____ because we don’t believe in it. You might want to try the Baptists. We hear they love to fuck.”
32/33.
Dicentra,
Of course. But that’s not the world we live and frankly, why I once–not nearly as jokingly as it might have seemed–said Jeff should run for POTUS.
I’m not siteowner worshipping the way the “Lizardoid” douches used to with Charles Johnson, its just that Jeff is a guy who really annunciates the Consitutionalist free-thinker position really well.
But we all know he’s not going to do that and for good reason.
Pussies who think the most important thing is the approval of “journalists”, a class that has shown their fervent desire to live under totalitarian dictators since the mid-1800s.
I’ve always admired Gen. Sherman, but especially after I heard how he reacted to a boat sinking on the Mississippi. He was crushed, saddened by the loss of life, until he was told a number of “journalists” had been on board and not survived. That news immediately cheered him up.
But the Catholics who fund the hospital shouldn’t be forced to pay for what they consider acts of murder.
They’re choosing to fund the hospital, which has to operate in compliance with federal regulation. If they don’t like the regs, they don’t have to operate the hospital. And that’s the point really, isn’t it?
(For the record, I don’t agree with this line of reasoning, I’m just presenting what I think the argument is likely to be. Thought I’d mention it before Crawford went all newrouter on me. [grin])
Saying you may not perform an act which harms another is one thing. Saying you MUST perform an act you believe harms another is a completely different matter.
The state forcing people to commit what they believe is murder. This isn’t a big, flashing red sign?
No problem, Ernst. I said above that I think the church’s response should be to end all charitable institutions in the US.
Respectfully to you, I disagree. This is bigfooting. They’ll win, but make enemies where they could have had none.
And respectfully back, I don’t think they care. The masks —and the gloves— are coming off.
But that’s not the world we live [in]
No!
They’re choosing to fund the hospital, which has to operate in compliance with federal regulation.
All of the regulations? Why? Who says the regulations are just and valid? Did these regulations come from the people or from the FDA’s unelected bureaucrats?
[Yes I know you’re not backing this argument; I’m refuting it anyway.]
Why should ANYONE be forced to pay for procedures that they find morally objectionable? People want to have a procedure that others find morally wrong, they can jolly well do it on their own dime.
Oh, and Boyd, we most definitely do live in a world where the Left is determined to destroy all its competitors, namely churches and families, who are liable to teach children something besides The Official Line, and we can’t have that.
Roddy, if Jeff starts flashing Brill Cream hair and outstandingly pearly whites, we’re going to blame you for the suggestion.
Crawford, you and Jeff might (in fact probably are) be right about how precedent doesn’t (or shouldn’t apply). I hope so.
Wheels within wheels scenario I just thought of:
Isn’t a majority of the court Catholic?
What if the point is to throw a case in front of the Court that either embarrasses the Church (even the Catholic majority [of one, that’s all it would take I think] sided with the state!) or it weakens the Court (these damn Catholic judges chose their sectarian faith over our American tradition of stare decisis — Catholics can’t serve on the court because we can’t trust them to uphold Roe).
I can see this bunch seeing that as a win-win.
That’s a bizarre scenario, Ernst. Not saying it hasn’t entered the “minds” of people who got the bulk of their education via Pravda’s outreach programs, but it’s bizarre.
The Court has had to decide church-state issues before, without it embarrassing the Court or the church involved. And, while I’m no lawyer and cop to not knowing the facts of the matter, I suspect the court has generally not found in the state’s favor. The draft recognized conscientious objectors for a reason, and I doubt it’s because a Congresscritter included it in the first draft.
I guess it’s possible someone sees riling up some old-fashioned Papist-bashing as a route to power, but it would be a nasty, bloody route. Made nastier and bloodier because a hell of a lot of people not otherwise inclined to give a rip about Catholicism would realize they were next on the list.
39.
Re the pullquote: A compelling misreading of my position. Well done.
I do, however, find myself stretched to believe that even a generic board hater like you would lend deep creedence to a group leadership that spent decades covering up the regular and forcible rape of boys as young as eight.
Such as my cousin.
As I note repeatedly here, Crawford, I could well be wrong–it is just my reading of a given matter. You might be the sort of man who could negotiate that sort of thing.
Your friend,
Roddy “The Journalist.”
100% correct Roddy. They shouldn’t have given up so easily in Massachussettes…
But really, when one gets down to brass tacks, they probably considered it “checkmate”. Because the courts would uphold the practice.
They could have continued, but just wouldn’t have been allowed to treat people with public insurance…
Kind of a spin off of Cloward-Piven in that respect. Either way they would have been “broken”, either by the courts or financially. I wonder how the other faith-based care systems dealt with it.
But at the time I thought they should have gone to the mattresses on that one; especially considering what must be a large percentage of Catholics in that state.
My friend J gets his condoms from Planned Parenthood he says they’re free but that PP is a horrible place to meet womens.
I’m just trying to think like they do.
So I assume they’re evil instead of incompetent.
And yeah, it’s paranoid.
Crawford, the problem with Catholics being the “hill to die on” is that the “hill to die on” happened over a decade ago with the tobacco settlement.
At the time, people warned that government coming after tobacco was merely the start of government overreach when it comes to public health.
And here we are.
It won’t be hard for a complicit press to vilify Catholics, because Catholics will be painted as misogynists who think women should be condemned to “back alley abortions.” Then there’s that whole God bothering thing the press sneers at.
(Okay, I admit, I’m probably reaching. If someone throws me a lifeline, try to make sure the attached anchor isn’t too heavy)
48.
Could well be. Reading tea leaves politically is certainly not my forte. I might be applying sense where none was used.
lend deep creedence to a group leadership
Deep credence? Not sure what you mean here. Catholics have always been against contraception and abortion, haven’t they?
Besides, this isn’t about Catholicism or the church, it’s about freedom of religion, as odiously as some in that religion have behaved.
a group leadership that spent decades covering up the regular and forcible rape of boys as young as eight.
Considering that our unionized public school system has systematically done the same thing to a greater degree over many more years — why is the animus aimed towards the mackerel snappers almost to exclusivity?
My friend J gets his condoms from Planned Parenthood he says they’re free
They’re also a great way to knock-up womens wherever he meets them.
So, Roddy, because a handful of criminals victimized your cousin you’ll deny 1/5th the country their 1st Amendment rights? The criminals deserve whatever punishment that can be brought to bear against them; you’ll never find anyone who believes that as much as I do. But you want to go ahead and punish people who are just as disgusted at the cover-ups? Going to impose collective guilt for the acts of a handful?
And like FUCK I misread your position: “what’s the utlility to me of defending the Catholic Church’s views and perogatives” Their “views” are that birth control, particularly abortion, is murder. Their “perogatives” are their inalienable right to live according to their beliefs. The “utility” of defending them is that EVERY DAMNED AMERICAN is defended when you defend their rights.
I guess dicentra misread your position, as well? Or perhaps you misstated your position? No? Then you truly believe that one out of every five people in the country should be denied their 1st Amendment rights, should be forced to take part in what they consider murder, because of the crimes of a handful?
You call me a “hater”?
also, please don’t tell me the recent attempt in a New Jersey hospital to force the nurses to participate in abortions – regardless of all the laws on the books that forbid such requirements — wasn’t a way to see how far the issue could be pushed in order to marginalize medical personnel of faith or drive them out of the profession.
I missed where Catholics behaved odiously mostly they build very pretty buildings and teach a lot of kids but if you want to have a vasectomy you can get one at planned parenthood for under $1000 which isn’t a lot of money considering how much it can save you.
The whole child abuse thing is mostly overwrought blah blah blah. Americans *love* to be victims. It’s a thing.
But I think mostly that irrespective of whether the church insurance policies cover the contraceptive/sterilization stuff or not, the sum total of contraceptive use in the world isn’t gonna change to where anyone would notice.
Well, like it or not, the right to smoke tobacco isn’t in the 1st Amendment. There is a bit in there about “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Not that I guess that means shit anymore.
Their “views” are that birth control, particularly abortion, is murder
um, point of order? Abortion or abortifacients = murder, but artificial contraception does not. Catholics consider “the marital act” as both unitive and procreative and artificially interfering with that part of marriage is intrinsically evil.
Will Obama Find out The Answer to Stalin’s Query:”How Many Divisions Does the Pope Have?”
Fair enough, Darleen. I stand corrected.
Crawford, sorry, I said things badly.
I think Catholics should do all they can to resist this serious intrusion into freedom of religion.
I was looking at Catholics versus government in the broader sense of how the conflict will play out and register with the general public.
I worry that since people didn’t seem to get the direction government was going with the tobacco settlement, people also won’t much care about the implications of this blatant attack on the Catholic faith.
But I think mostly that irrespective of whether the church insurance policies cover the contraceptive/sterilization stuff or not, the sum total of contraceptive use in the world isn’t gonna change to where anyone would notice.
So, you agree there is another agenda by Obama in forcing Catholics to violate their conscience?
<i.The whole child abuse thing is mostly overwrought blah blah blah. Americans *love* to be victims. It’s a thing.
What in Sam Hill are you smoking, ‘feets?
the sum total of contraceptive use in the world isn’t gonna change to where anyone would notice.
Again with the “it’s too small to matter” argument.
It always starts small. It’s always incremental. Which is why God invented the phrase “nip it in the bud.”
Crawford
I only brought it up because I’ve lurked on a lot of Left-feminist sites where they really believe their snarky, nasty jokes about godbotherers believing sperm=baby.
A small small fraction of catholics believe that sex is “both unitive and procreative and artificially interfering with that part of marriage is intrinsically evil” I think Darleen. It doesn’t seem to be very wide-spread.
Maybe it’s partly an upper tribe/lower tribe thing.
I worry that since people didn’t seem to get the direction government was going with the tobacco settlement, people also won’t much care about the implications of this blatant attack on the Catholic faith.
That’s not a bad point, actually. The difference being that the right to inhale poison isn’t specified in the Constitution and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is, and furthermore, all religious people know that if it’s Catholics today, it’s the rest of us tomorrow, and the fight for religious freedom came to this continent with the Mayflower, whereas the “right” to make foolish health choices didn’t as much.
A small small fraction of catholics believe that sex is “both unitive and procreative and artificially interfering with that part of marriage is intrinsically evil”
It’s the official Church Doctrine to be against contraception. The fact that individual Catholics choose to ignore the doctrine is irrelevant.
What in Sam Hill are you smoking, ‘feets?
dicentra Americans expend vast amounts of time and energy attempting to get victim status bestowed upon them and theirs
it’s very peculiar
but that whole pedophilia priest thing smelled very bogus – it was a run of the mill few bad apples thing i think
Again with the “it’s too small to matter” argument.
there’s definitely a LOT of abrogations of liberty afoot in our little country what are a lot more alarming
where they really believe their snarky, nasty jokes about godbotherers believing sperm=baby.
One of the first Lefty demonstrations I saw at Cornell featured chalk scrawls on the sidewalk to the effect that “not every ejaculation deserves a name,” and as astounded as I was at their ignorance of biology and doctrine, I already knew that trying to enlighten them would be fruitless.
Crawford, you very clearly misread the position. Intentionally. The intent–clearly–was framing a hypothetical based on a very real world observation that even the dullest knife could comprehend: Politicians act out of political self-interest. Right now, the RC hierarchy is rather mortally compromised and standing up in full throat for an issue irrevocably linked to their doctorine and their leadership is a political loser.
Here’s the rub dummy: it never used to be politically stupid to at least strongly argue these views, but, since it was revealed that hundreds of clerical leaders acted to coverup forcible and non-consensual sexual assault over generations, well, the middle-of-the-road political leaders probably aren’t going to get too terribly dirty for Bishop __________ concerns.
I’m always amazed that you conflate my discussion as to why things don’t happen with my actual views, which are rather normative for this site (although they are far right in the milieu in which I work.)
A handful of criminals? It was dozens and dozens of different leaders, in a host of dioceses, in all four time zones. Name a city over 25k population that hasn’t had a priest removed…good luck. I just moved from a city, Greenwich Ct, that had three (though it might be four) priests removed for various long-standing homosexual relationships. Somehow, giving is down in the richest archdiocese in the nation. Let’s see you scupper some reasons together as to how thats my fault.
Collective victimization? Jesus. I’m simply noting that 15 years ago a Cardinal could have called congressmen and Senators and pleaded a case, to great effect—as was done, on many occasions, as often as not for left-leaning issues as right. Now, that’s an easy call to finesse for a Federal official.
Somehow, the arguments made here, most clearly by Jeff, Bob R. and DiCentra, aren’t getting through.
I have no idea on how the sex abuse fits into this discussion.
That’s because it doesn’t.
Catholics gave me free high-level education and a third of my meals for 12 years. Took my siblings and I from lower class to comfortably middle. Does that matter?
No. It doesn’t either.
We’re looking at an infringement of clear and explicit rights here. That’s it. Nothing else.
“religious freedom came to this continent with the Mayflower”
you no like injun’s peace pipe? racist.
but that whole pedophilia priest thing smelled very bogus – it was a run of the mill few bad apples thing i think
Huh what? Some pederast priests preyed on children, and the higher-ups dealt with it by transferring them instead of defrocking them. Of course it wasn’t every priest or higher-up what done it, but it was kind of an open secret, like Sandusky at Penn State. They should have known better.
Besides, being the kid who was molested is no “victim” ploy; the damage is very real.
What do I intend to do? Well, two years ago, I signed the very prescient Manhattan Declaration, vowing to meet government overreach with civil disobedience. I’m damned if I’ll give up my first amendment rights to freedom of religion. I’m damned if I’ll stand by while someone else, and their children, has their first amendment rights abrogated by Obama’s fascist state. I intend to end up in jail, if necessary.
How do the pedophiles and their enablers fit into this discussion?
They don’t.
DiCentra
What up with that capital C, yo?
I’m simply noting that 15 years ago a Cardinal could have called congressmen and Senators and pleaded a case, to great effect—as was done, on many occasions, as often as not for left-leaning issues as right. Now, that’s an easy call to finesse for a Federal official.
I’m pretty sure there’s going to be more than Catholic leadership involved. The LDS church regularly files amicus briefs and helps with legal council when other churches are having their Constitutional rights violated. No doubt the Protestants and Jews and maybe even Muslims see this as an assault on all religions, not on Catholicism in particular.
So they’ll have more moral authority and muscle than tainted Cardinals behind them.
Damascus Mulqueeny
Hear hear!
Of course there is, Darleen.
Did dicentra? Because I wasn’t the only one who read it that way.
Whatever. Believe I purposefully got your meaning wrong, if that makes you feel better.
(And, dude, “dozens and dozens” out of 1/5th of the population of the US? That’s a fucking handful. They were a well-placed, powerful handful, sure. But so are the public school officials Darleen mentioned.)
there’s definitely a LOT of abrogations of liberty afoot in our little country what are a lot more alarming
More alarming to whom? I consider this one to be worse than the trans-fat thing. De gustibus, I guess.
Besides, this is post #33438 of pw, one conservative blog among thousands. There’s plenty of room to be outraged at them all, each in their turn.
“How do the pedophiles and their enablers fit into this discussion?”
if your 1st instinct is to find the victim ,in this instance the catholic church, an oppressor push the victim’s previous crimes. leftoid thinking(for example usa and 911)
Yeah, but the victims are unpopular, so why should any politician stand up for them?
More alarming to whom?
I just think this is mostly a “the catholics are mad cause the socialists are making them offer contraceptives and stuff on their health plans” thing.
“but the victims are unpopular”
with whom? the mbm/proggs? the rest of the country not so much.
mittens 49% non mittens 49% 46% reporting
I just think this is mostly a “the catholics are mad cause the socialists are making them offer contraceptives and stuff on their health plans” thing.
No, happy. It’s a lot more than that.
Not to sound too dramatic, but it’s a Kristallnacht moment for the Catholic Church.
I honestly don’t get it then
You’d think that the failshit whore socialisms all over this one would be obvious.
I know that. You know that.
Although, based on the reactions I’ve seen on some conservative sites, I wonder. Some of it’s been “screw them, they support too many left-wing causes”, but there’s been a few just plain old “papistry” BS that I thought died out a couple generations ago. Apparently I was wrong.
nobody is making anybody get contraceptives or vasectomies or what have you
and it’s pretty much the same position we’d be in if Warren Buffett decided to god bless america die and leave all his money to a “free contraceptives and sterilization fund”
plus the church’s position is a LOT undercut by the fact that hardly any catholics really believe that stuff
mittens 48% non mittens 51% 50% reporting
wow that’s a big number for Wall Street Romney
They can’t be reporting. Polls aren’t closed yet.
They were supposed to learn this for real in 2000.
happyfeet, please keep your fool, foul mouth shut on this topic.
“but there’s been a few just plain old “papistry” BS”
its not coming from the mainline wasps
Everyone here knows you’re a knave and a fool and a prating jackass. So why do you feel the need to keep proving it? Thrill not what it used to be or something?
Fucking cretin.
No, they’re just making people who have religious objections pay for them.
plus the church’s position is a LOT undercut by the fact that hardly any catholics really believe that stuff
You really gotta get out of El-Lay once in a while.
“Polls aren’t closed yet”
polls close in the panhandle at 8 est the rest are closed
“They were supposed to learn this for real in 2000.”
its a rethuglican primary
OT: Rep. Allen West Announces That He Will Switch Districts
No. But just that people feel free to express it in public was surprising. Like the LDS bashing you find in some of the anti-Romney threads.
Happy it is because the Church, regardless of whether the members follow all of the rules to the letter (and no one does),believes that Life is a Seamless Garment. That is that life begins at conception and ends when God, not man ends it. No contraceptives, no morning after pills, no abortions, no assisted suicides.
It’s not about birth control. It’s about freedom of religion.
mittens 48% non mittens 51% 56% reporting
I’ve committed to Iowa in July
fireflies!
Look, I want to grab a second here and note that I’m simply noting the diminished moral authority of the Roman Catholic leadership. As a Catholic HS and Jesuit college grad, I have a full and fair appreciation for the beauty of the message; moreover, I respect that billions find hope and strength in its grasp.
I agree with some of “The Church’s” teachings and some I don’t. Big deal. The faithfully led deserved better from its leaders. One of the unfortunate fallouts from their sins–the leadership, that is–is an inability to lead effectively in a desperate hour like this.
Leigh I think we’re just getting away from the idea that the failshit federal government shouldn’t be mandating what’s in anybody’s health plan.
It’s not that Catholics should get a special exemption.
It’s not that at all.
Swallowing fireflies while on that cross-state bike ride?
“the leadership, that is–is an inability to lead effectively in a desperate hour like this.”
yea nothing says panty waste like telling 25% of the population to be ready for civil disobedience on a sunday morning.
Happy,
I think now is not a time to do your schtick. It’s not working. This is a core issue for many here. You have something to say? Say it. Just avoid the preening fake lingo and silliness.
Shorter version: Grow up for a few minutes.
The faithfully led deserved better from its leaders. One of the unfortunate fallouts from their sins–the leadership, that is–is an inability to lead effectively in a desperate hour like this.
All the more reason to remember the response “And with your spirit” then.
“It’s not that Catholics should get a special exemption.”
in baracky’s universe that is called a “positive right” what the gov’t can do for you. they can do cupcakes too but might take them away in the future if you’re a “bad” pikachu.
mittens 47% non mittens 51% 62% reporting
I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Roddy, no worries about your leaving the Church. I have a number of friends who have done likewise. One in particular was in the Diocese of Boston when a lot of the ugliness was brought forward and he left in disgust and has never returned.
At least for me, I am not finding anything you are saying to be disrespectful. It is your personal experience, especially when it involved a family member. For that I am truly sorry that the Church betrayed you both and so many others, as well.
Also, I’d like to publicly apologize to Crawford.
Upthread, I intimated that he might have tolerated the clerical abuses. I don’t like how he conducts himself here, but that was out of line and a slut that was not waranted.
I retract that, for the record.
slut=slur
The regret and apology stands.
“the Church betrayed you both”
a man made institution betrayed them. the theology/philosophy not so much.
good thing the rand the t are next to each other on the keyboard, otherwise I might think you had pickachu on the brain.
you’re grumpy Mr. Roddy and it’s five o’clock anyway and I have to scoot home but I stand by what I said, I do
it’s just how I think
No Happy, I’m not.
It’s just that sometime “the failings” doesn’t work.
mittens 47% non mittens 51% 68% reporting after spending millions in ad buys.
No problem; I understand how that could hit close to home for you and that’s why I didn’t respond to that part.
But I’d really appreciate it if you sent the slut anyway.
a man made institution betrayed them. the theology/philosophy not so much
Yes. The saying that “your faith is in the Church, not in your priest” is for a reason.
Crawford,
thanks.
I will attempt to reason out how that can be accomplished.
mittens 47% non mittens 52% 71% reporting
Honestly, I really hate to say this, but I don’t see how this could be considered impeding the free practice of religion. You don’t want to use contraceptives, then don’t. This is a losing battle.
It is still unconstitutional as hell overall for all of us, and that is what matters.
Yay! Sluts for everyone!
Okay, we’re all good then and sharing in the warmth of each others’ company.
Roddy, this is where you went sideways for me:
You’re a former Catholic and I’m hardly even that. But, as Americans, as Americans with 1st Amendment protections, this still must register highly on our indignancy meter, yes?
That’s why I view any stain on the Church (and it was; I say that as a guy who served a confirmation mass for Archbishop Weakland) as a non sequitur to this issue.
“, but I don’t see how this could be considered impeding the free practice of religion. ”
oh gay marriage mr. priest the state says it is ok that and the state says i can kill you filthy christians. allan ackbar.
BMoe
When I was a kid, our family doctor was a Catholic. Fine, gentle man. However, he just didn’t write prescriptions for the pill.
So my mom just got it from the other doctor in the practice. No fuss, no screaming about discrimination and his lack of respect for women’s “health prevention.”
Now, what if the government forced him not only to give my mom the Pill but for him to pay for it.
That is what the Obama admin is saying … Catholic employers must provide insurance that includes “free” contraceptives, including those that are considered abortifacients … or else.
A key part of any successful revolution is to make the existing government a direct and personal threat to as many people as possible.
Barry O. Most successful president ever.
Condemn rich people, who are the only job creators in the economy. Get their contributions, first, though, because there’s a sucker born every minute.
Praise communist parasites, which emboldens them to finally come out of mom’s basement and finally burn shit down. This pisses off the law abiding citizens, and puts the cops in the middle because they know that Obamanomics is the only hope they have of retiring at fifty with full pensions.
Kill brown people with drones. Piss of the fellow travelers.
Kill American citizens without due process. Piss of the Federalists, Libertarians, Conservatives.
Kill brown people with smuggled guns. Now this one is a three – fer: Piss off Conservatives who recognize the move as a conspiracy to erode the Second amendment. Piss off the True Believers because Holder got caught and nobody likes a loser. Piss off media because it’s a great story – and yet another one they can’t cover because He’s Their Guy…
Surrender to the Taliban. Piss off … no, piss on the graves of every soldier killed in Afghanistan. And declare open season on the infidel… on January 21st 2013.
I tell ya, this Obama fellow, he’s done just what his side set out to do, beginning with recognizing that the only way to kill this country was from inside.
Always exciting to be a witness to history.
At this point, keeping Obama to one term will have the same effect as putting the cuffs on a man who just stabbed his neighbor in the heart.
No longer a threat but the damage is already done.
It isn’t about using, B Moe, it’s about being compelled to supply. And not just contraceptives but sterilizations and abortifacients.
I’m one of those lapsed Catholics too and I’ve proudly held that status for 30+ years. I stand foursquare with the Catholics on this one.
P.S. I was even an altar boy, and nobody ever touched me like that. Good people and my family is lousy with ’em.
An Obamacare exemption. Special Mideast beta-version.
Another lapsed Catholic here.
Never went for any sort of role in the church, but I had to admire the parish priest — former physicist with the TVA.
*Altar boy fist bump*, Pablo.
mr. mr newt is taking on the the “dc establishment”
Quakers have to pay taxes for militaries they are opposed to. Rastafari have to pay taxes for the cops that really do imped them if they try to smoke weed, for fucks sake.
I am with ‘feets on this one, you guys insist on focusing on this silly ass little religious shit and losing complete sight of the big picture.
i was feeling very alone
Leigh I think we’re just getting away from the idea that the failshit federal government shouldn’t be mandating what’s in anybody’s health plan.
It’s not that Catholics should get a special exemption.
Was it on this blog or elsewhere that someone observed that as soon as you’re having to grant religious exceptions to a mandate, that’s evidence that the mandate shouldn’t exist?
Hey, I’ll be glad to demand that the mandates be revoked across the board, not just for Catholics. And while I’m at it, I’ll revoke put’near everything the fed has mandated regarding insurance.
Except for enforcement of contract after you’ve paid the agreed amount and file a legitimate claim. That part must be kept.
The Amish don’t have to pay into SSI or register for the draft, either.
Stupid religious people, anyway.
“you guys insist on focusing on this silly ass little religious shit and losing complete sight of the big picture.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Quakers have to pay taxes for militaries they are opposed to. Rastafari have to pay taxes for the cops that really do impede them if they try to smoke weed, for fucks sake.
Those are taxes. All of us are paying for something we find horribly objectionable. Supposedly, we get to send our reps to Washington to defund that which we object to.
This is a mandate about private insurance coverage provided by private employers to private citizens. As if the gubmint had any business mandating anything in that category to begin with.
losing complete sight of the big picture.
Which is?
That’s the first amendment, B. Moe. That silly ass shit you’re talking about.
There was actually a discussion a long time ago on whether or not it even needed to be included in the Constitution because it was so obvious.
Now it’s silly ass shit.
Like the right to bear arms. Or free speech.
I think some of our posters staunchiness needs a little starch.
catholics are still free to do catholic stuff nobody has to contracept anything
And this doesn’t prevent anyone from practicing their religion.
Catholics, and most other religions have paid taxes and fees that support things they oppose for years. Hell, most of you supporting it on here are admitted nonpracticing Catholics. Now all of a sudden you get indignant over this.
Its petty, its transparent, and its counter-productive. The whole fucking bill is unconstitutional, that is what we need to be shouting from the rooftops.
But go on, make this your Alamo. Meanwhile, let me give you a preview of coming attractions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Boys, that is the whole point. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Other silly ass shit includes not having soldiers stationed in your house. Or, I don’t know, a jury trial. How about not being tortured after being arrested?
Silly ass shit.
Is this an Obamacare mandate or just a stray sneeze from the Oministration?
Its petty, its transparent, and its counter-productive.
You’re entitled to your opinion but not to omit apostrophes.
BMoe
The “big picture” is whether or not the 1st Amendment means anything anymore.
Exactly.
Maybe it has something to do with principle.
and let’s not forget that the Catholic church was a huge cheerleader for obamacare
but the most important point is that the federal government shouldn’t be micro-managing health plans for me you or Mila Kunis, and that is getting very a lot obscured
Actually, let’s. Because, again, it’s a fucking non sequitur.
THIS JUST IN: “Founding Fathers,” “Constitution” and “old-fashioned American values” are now Racial Code Words.
Your are now returned to your previous thread concerning the [racist code word].
This isn’t impeding or restricting the practice of a religion.
What happened to words meaning what they mean and strict interpretation? Am I not on Protein Wisdom anymore?
It isn’t Constitutional because there is no provision for this in the Constitution, not because of the First Amendment.
“and let’s not forget that the Catholic church was a huge cheerleader for obamacare”
This is worth recalling in detail. Assurances were proffered in exchange for support, assurances which have now been revoked in full.
And this doesn’t prevent anyone from practicing their religion
So you have no problem requiring all doctors in medical school to being trained in, and doing a rotation that will require, they provide abortions? How about requiring participation in euthanasia or the death penality via lethal injection?
They can still go home and worship the Big Myth In the Sky, but by damn, they will do as they are told.
no Mr. bh the Catholic church was a lot happy with the failshit federal government force force forcing everybody to buy health insurance
I won’t ask how they like them apples I already know
I understand why the Catholic’s ass is chapped over this, but it isn’t a winning debate strategy. Politically or legally.
Who cares if they like those apples?
Who cares if you like the crazy person publishing the dirty book that people want to burn?
Who cares if you actually like soldiers and occasionally have them sleep over at your house because you’re buddies from high school?
None of that matters. At all. Not even a little.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
We’re not talking about what Catholic’s taxes go to pay for, B Moe. We’re talking about what the Catholic Church is being compelled to pay for directly. This is very basic First Amendment shit, and I’m surprised that you don’t see it, what with you being my alter ego and all.
What is this, your Amanda Marcotte impersonation?
I am talking about paying for insurance that provides contraception, like in the original post. Nobody is being compelled to do anything except pay for insurance in the discussion I was having.
Being compelled to do something is very different than being compelled to pay for it.
I don’t get all the consternation we all agree this is wrong we just don’t all agree that it’s especially super duper wrong just cause the Catholic church gets its toes stepped on
It’s absolutely wrong, and it needs to be overturned. But you aren’t going to overturn it with a flawed argument.
Catholics, and most other religions have paid taxes and fees that support things they oppose for years.
Directly? That’s a little hard to prove, because all our taxes go into a pool, then it’s divvied out again, and you can argue (stupidly, but you can) that YOUR money isn’t paying for the stuff you don’t want, it’s the other guy’s.
This, however, is a mandate to pay directly and specifically for something they’re religiously opposed to.
It’s like forcing kosher and halal markets to sell pork and then insisting that religious tenets are not being violated, because hey, the believers aren’t forced to buy the pork, they just have to supply it.
Again, if you agree that The Big Picture is that the mandates shouldn’t exist in the first place, that’s all well and good, but we can’t point to this as an example of the many ways in which it’s unconst[racist code word]itutional?
The more outrage the better, say I.
BH, your points are well made. I completely agree with you.
Roddy
‘Journalist” and former altar boy
It’s not super duper wrong because it involves Catholics. It’s not even slightly more wrong because it involves them.
Who was arguing that though?
*Altar boy fist bump*, Roddy.
It’s two separate wrongs, ‘feets. One of them we’re all talked out on, and looking at a couple of different fixes for. The other is a new one.
Nobody is being compelled to do anything except pay for insurance in the discussion
They’re mandating that the objectionable services be included in the insurance coverage. Why the hell does the Oministration get to interfere in this private exchange?
But you aren’t going to overturn it with a flawed argument.
The argument is not flawed. If you pay a hit man to kill someone, you’re guilty of murder. If you send money to the Jihad through a Muslim “charity,” you’re a Jihadi.
Perhaps the fact that we are paying for a buttload of things we find objectionable is Yet Another Argument for rescinding the 16th Amendment.
Making it useful to make.
“Being compelled to do something is very different than being compelled to pay for it.”
dude don’t drink idiotic
It’s exactly like the first example. Your insurance money is going into a big pool. A small fraction of it might go to something your are opposed to, it doesn’t necessarily have to be your money. They only thing they are compelling you to do is buy that particular insurance.
That is the issue. Don’t be distracted by long shot arguments.
I suppose I should mention that I got defrocked as an altar boy. It was completely my brother’s fault, tho.
I’m noting that those what dismiss this all as a tempest in a teapot are them what most find Religion Itself to be objectionable.
It’s not super duper wrong because it involves Catholics. It’s not even slightly more wrong because it involves them.
I thought the Catholic church was kinda hinting here that unconstitutional government coercion is really super bad when it affects Catholics…
On Sunday, in Catholic churches around the country, priests read letters from their local bishops declaring the law an unconstitutional attack on the religious liberty of Catholics and calling on Catholics to oppose the regulation and fight to have it rescinded.
I just say that cause I never heard them complaining before this about the other unconstitutional government coercions in the obamacares
I love the way you’re thinking, di.
Y’all aren’t going to let on about that worldwide market-cornering altar boy wine smuggling conspiracy, are you? That Dan Brown guy has a copyright on it, and he’s probably not shy about lawsuits.
“that it’s especially super duper wrong just cause the Catholic church gets its toes stepped on”
pikachus 1st then demi moore then scoobey do
It would have been a good argument a century or so ago, there are too many precedents under the bridge now. You have much better odds getting a big new thing thrown out than 100 years of creeping precedents.
I seem to recall James Madison thinking the first 10 amendments were pretty darn necessary; and that the prospect of their inclusion was fairly pivotal in ratifying the Constitution as originally written; especially in the states that were skeptical of the plan for a strong central government.
I also seem to recall a lot of palaver recently about the need to respect the OWS anarchists hallowed first amendment rights; at the expense of a lot of public property…
I’m not thinking this is tilting at windmills and such, but arguments of principle.
And as far as some of the folks objecting being practining or lapsed in the religious faith doesn’t seem to change the basic substance of the argument. Nor does support that Obamacare originally recieved, regrettably, by laypersons and clergy alike.
Were they played? Indeed, they were; well played I might say, when the Bishop of my own diocese told the NY Times that the “social justice” of universal medical care should essentially outweigh the faithful’s concern over underwriting contraception and abortion for others. I remeber fuming over this at the time, and predicting that this would come back to bite him and his colleagues who joined in the Faustian bargain. And now they’re seeing what happens when you make such a bargain. I might suggest that all shanfreudian delight be relished in over that sublime irony.
Because at the risk of being cliche, I seem to recall a poem popular with the lefty’s that goes something like, “First they came for the [fill in the blank]”.
Here, that space reads “Catholics” in text, but really should read first amendment rights instead.
Here’s hoping it’s the proverbial bridge too far, as is suggested upthread.
It’s two separate wrongs, ‘feets. One of them we’re all talked out on, and looking at a couple of different fixes for. The other is a new one.
I think Mr. Moe has the better part of that argument Mr. Pablo. No person of faith is forced to contracept and/or sterilize anything at all cause of this law.
Let’s fix that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUTPhZmkIDI
No, they’re just forced to provide for that, in violation of their beliefs. Duh.
They only thing they are compelling you to do is buy that particular insurance.
Catholic institutions don’t want to be forced to offer (and pay for) healthcare plans that include coverage for contraception and abortion. They’d rather offer plans that don’t cover those things.
If you buy a plan that doesn’t cover contraception, your money does NOT go into a pool that pays for it.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Come on, now, that’s not fair. I have defended religious rights on here steadfastly. I am arguing from a strict interpretation viewpoint, and I don’t think you have a valid argument.
I don’t find religion objectable at all what I find objectable is its absurd centrality to the failshit Romney-fucked Republican party while our little country is become a joke among nations
“They only thing they are compelling you to do is buy that particular insurance.
That is the issue.”
well abortioncontraception services in that particular insurance policy is against my religion mr statist. you be forcing that on me? what else you be forcing statist?
the rights, Mr. Bob, do they inhere in the group or the individual
we used to know it was the individual
yes we did
Catholic institutions don’t want to be forced to offer (and pay for) healthcare plans that include coverage for contraception and abortion. They’d rather offer plans that don’t cover those things.
If you buy a plan that doesn’t cover contraception, your money does NOT go into a pool that pays for it.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Whether they want to or not doesn’t matter to a First Amendment argument. The question is, does paying into that pool impede or restrict the practice of their religion, and you have to stretch the definition of impede or restrict pretty far to answer yes.
“No person of faith is forced to contracept and/or sterilize anything at all cause of this law.”
oh noes we gives it to baracky so big man baracky can give to his knee pad fiends.
that seems so clear as day to me – show me one person what is forced to do uncatholic things by this law
people aren’t responsible for other people’s contraceptions
when you put on a rubber it’s all on you, no matter who bought it
Yeah, well, the Constitution is confusing because it’s 100 years old. Or not.
It’s telling, perhaps, that here on Long Island there was no letter from the Bishop read to the congregation; although as I mentioned upthread, there are a lot of reliable Democrat voters amongst the laity who have their knickers in a twist over this.
Like Roddy said upstream, seems like a pretty stupid move, politically, unless their internal polls clearly indicate that they’ll enjoy a signfigant pickup in counterculture voters from this latest edict-moreso than they alienate among the faithful…
Seems like a boneheaded maneuver to me, because they had both groups in hand, especially after the super dreamy SOTU last week.
Not only will this gambit ultimately fail, as Roddy opined, it may cost the O!ministration some swing states.
The Catholic employers. Duh.
Oh, that’s fucking hilarious.
“does paying into that pool impede or restrict the practice of their religion,”
no. but forcing catholic hospitals to preform abortions does. forcing catholics et al to purchase “health insurance” with procedures that violate their faith does. forcing the citizens to buy health insurance by a fed gov’t does. that last is the constitution. a “religion” if you will.
“show me one person what is forced to do uncatholic things by this law”
the manager of a catholic hospital
Are you familiar with the phrase “Congress shall make no law”? The Constitution speaks to things the government shall not fuck with. It does not delineate who who holds what rights. It just says what’s hands off.
I believe that the admendments apply to individuals happyfeet, but I may be too rosy and optimistic.
The question is, does paying into that pool impede or restrict the practice of their religion, and you have to stretch the definition of impede or restrict pretty far to answer yes.
Who gets to determine what constitutes “practicing one’s religion”? Don’t the Catholics get to determine whether one act or the other is within the strictures of their religion? I’m pretty sure that neither you nor I gets to say whether “paying into a pool” violates the right to act (or not act) according to the dictates of their conscience.
Furthermore, “impede and restrict the practice of religion” only covers one type of interference with religious observance; no one should be prevented from living their religion nor forced to do (or pay for) things prohibited by one’s conscience.
This is a mandate from effing Health and Human Services under Kathleen Sibelius that they went ahead and announced last August. None of our elected representatives voted for it, so there’s no damn reason anyone should have to comply, religious or otherwise.
They are under this regulation.
when you put on a rubber it’s all on you, no matter who bought it
So you’re down for making people pay for something they don’t believe in.
Like socialisms, for example?
The Catholic employers. Duh.
I don’t get that Mr. P
it’s not that the church is required to subsidize contraception
the law is that health plans aren’t allowed not to offer contraception, and they can’t charge a co-pay for it neither
that law is offensive on its face
Oh, that’s fucking hilarious.
that is not fucking hilarious dearest Pablo it does suggest however that you are a lazy reader, which is fine I’m not judging
Are you familiar with the phrase “Congress shall make no law”?
if Congress has indeed made a law inhibiting the free exercise of religion – who is this person who has been so inhibited? And don’t say Mila Kunis.
So you’re down for making people pay for something they don’t believe in.
I’ve said only like 8 times already dicentra that the law is wrong, but it’s wrong cause our pitiful joke of a government has no business trying to run health care. Why should anyone have to be made to pay for the American government at all? They shouldn’t, cause it’s a cowardly whore what sucks balls.
But you have to pick your battles.
The whole fucking [ObamaCare] bill is unconstitutional, that is what we need to be shouting from the rooftops.
Justice Kennedy hasn’t rendered his decision yet.
You know happyfeet, Pablo got a real strong point there too. It does say “Congress will enact no laws prohibiting…”
Seems pretty clearly written. And it satisfied the anti-federalists at the time of the Constitution’s ratification that there would be no central government intrusion or over-reach.
But what did all those old white guys know, more than 100 years ago :)
I believe that the admendments apply to individuals happyfeet, but I may be too rosy and optimistic.
I think so too that’s why it’s odd to find “catholics” to be the aggrieved party, but there’s nary an aggrieved individual person.
It’s all very a lot disturbingly tribal in some ways.
the law is that health plans aren’t allowed not to offer contraception, and they can’t charge a co-pay for it neither
that law is offensive on its face
For many reasons, one of which is that it forces people to subsidize things they don’t countenance. Unless the employee is paying for the entire premium, the employer is being forced to subsidize that which objects to religiously.
Cripes, ‘feets, is there any activity that you’d find morally objectionable enough that you want to plead conscientious objection from the law mandating you to pay for it? Can’t you put yourself in their position?
i think some of the peeps buy into the “separation of church/state” mythology instead of the constitution: “free exercise thereof”.
We’re all adults and we’re just going to assume that the standing will happen as a matter of course.
who is not free to exercise their religion Mr. Bob? You most certainly are. Me I am.
Catholics are more free than ever in fact not to practice contraception, cause now it’s a for reals decision and God can’t say yeah well you only kept my laws cause your health care plan wouldn’t cover it anyway.
But you have to pick your battles.
What’s wrong with this battle, as it’s part of the larger war? Why not present gobs and gobs of reasons why the law is an ass, such as the fact that it impinges on religious freedom?
Why not shove this outrage down the throats of HHS as a rebuke to their arrogance as well as all the other outrages we can find? Is there something about resisting this mandate that prevents us from resisting the whole enchilada?
Cripes, if you don’t want to make the argument, don’t bother; no reason why those of us who are outraged can’t take these mofos to the mat.
“I think so too that’s why it’s odd to find “catholics” to be the aggrieved party”
his high hollowness has to shoot something 1st to get the others attention
the catholics are too tribal with their religion they should just get over it and stop fussing over insignificant stuff so they can help the staunch fight the spendings the jesus whores.
it forces people to subsidize things they don’t countenance.
this also happens when we let churches take prime awesomely located property off the property tax rolls and we all still pay for the upkeep of the surrounding streets and sidewalks
it happens with Santorum style family centric redistributive tax schemes too
it also happens when I have to go to NY for work
Look, I am a debater. Sometimes in a debate picking a small detail and going after it is winning tactic, but it has to be a pretty sure bet. Here, you are using a stretched definition to go against several decades of precedent in a battle that is going to be very easy to demogogue by the opposition.
That’s three strikes against you before you even start. Sooner or later we need to start fighting with the idea of winning instead of making statements. That doesn’t mean voting for anybody but Obama, but we need to pick our fights wisely. I don’t think this is a wise decision, and I explained exactly why, but all I get is disingenuous bullshit from people I thought were friends.
Fine, catch you later.
“Catholics are more free than ever in fact not to practice contraception”
hey let’s bring up non issues. you go picachu cough. cough.
There’s two (at least) separate issues here, both involving healthcare.
The way the law is applied to individuals (the mandate)
The way the law is applied to religious organizations (no conscience exemptions)
It’s wrong to force people to buy a product or pay a tax/fine for not buying that product.
Its’ wrong to force a religious organization to provide a product (or services) that conflict with the tenets of their religion.
I use wrong instead of unconstitutional because as of now it’s either unclear or constitutional based on previous rulings.
The intentionally oblivious is strong in here.
if Congress has indeed made a law inhibiting the free exercise of religion – who is this person who has been so inhibited?
1) Congress didn’t make the “law”; HHS announced a rule.
2) The language is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It turns out that the free exercise of religion consists of both doing and not doing.
cause now it’s a for reals decision and God can’t say yeah well you only kept my laws cause your health care plan wouldn’t cover it anyway.
That God: always a sucker for sophistry.
If your insurance doesn’t cover it, you can still pay out of pocket, so there goes your argument.
Dear American Catholic Bishops,
You knew I was a snake when you picked me up.
Love,
Progressive Politics.
Really? ‘Cause I feel like saying bullshit.
Down the line Catholic I know gives his charitable money to the hospital that his sister died at.
Would it have taken you even a moment to imagine such a person? Are you being obtuse? What?
“Fine, catch you later.”
please do come back when you want to talk about the destruction of the “civil society/founders” by the “open society/soros”
Yes.
Here, you are using a stretched definition to go against several decades of precedent
Several decades of bad precedent, may I point out. You gotta start somewhere, sometime.
this also happens when we let churches take prime awesomely located property off the property tax rolls and we all still pay for the upkeep of the surrounding streets and sidewalks
WE ALL CONTRIBUTED TO THE FACTORY SO WE GET TO SEIZE THE PROFITS!
Down the line Catholic I know gives his charitable money to the hospital that his sister died at.
well he can probably find a way to designate his donation like the Texas Children’s Hospital does – there’s a nifty dropdown box
by biggest concern is that they use the monies for to help sick texas children, so I’ve never dropped down
but I could
Well happy,
The Catholic Church is an aggreived party in the same way a corporation is like a person. They’re aggrieved because not only will they have to have health plans that include procedures they eschew completely-for religious reasons, but that this is closely related to an increasing pressure for their facilities, which are typically in the worst neighborhoods and serve the poorest among us, to provide those same services.
And as far as individuals go? As I’ve mentioned there are a staggering number of individuals in the Catholic laity that are aggrieved here. For many of the same reasons, but as I also mentioned upthread many personally feel betrayed because they’re reliable Democrat voters. I guess they thought the fix was in, but the fix blew up, it seems…
And despite both the institutions and the individuals being involved in pushing Obamacare, and that being worth of amusement, the blatant disregard of the first amendment isn’t.
Bit I have to say you’re line about us being able to be extra devout now that it’s a “for reals decision” was pretty darn funny.
The whole damn healthcare law needs to be scrapped.
LMC wins the thread @ 233.
*my* biggest concern i mean
“The whole damn healthcare law needs to be scrapped.”
racist
Okay, LMC @ 233 is the thread winnah!
the blatant disregard of the first amendment isn’t.
Oh, the First Amendment doesn’t apply because Congress didn’t issue the mandate.
</fuming>
The whole damn healthcare law needs to be scrapped.
Amen Mr. Bob
racistPapistFixed that for you newrouter :)
“No person of faith is forced to contracept and/or sterilize anything at all cause of this law.”
“They only thing they are compelling you to do is buy that particular insurance.”
Jeff’s already suggested that whereas most of the existing Supreme Court juris prudence on 1st amendment free exercise cases consists of defining the allowable limits of infringing on action (no multiple wives, no vision quests fueled by contraband hallucogens), in this instance we’re talking about the state compelling action contrary to the free exercise thereof, without a meaningful conscience exemption.
So that’s not really a strong argument. But with the court, who knows?
link
Intersting point Di.
But, since it’s issued by HHS under authority delegated by Congress to the same, well, whatchathink?
That’d be a good one to send to Mark Levin to figure out :)
“Congress didn’t issue the mandate.”
passed the “law”
happyfeet, Dude!, were you being serious, or seriously ironic when you gave a brother an “Amen!” on a thread revolving around a discussion of religious liberty?
Or was it an unintentional double entendre :)
authority delegated by Congress
Time for that B.S. to stop.
Everyone who doesn’t see a 1st amendment issue here say “Aye”.
“HHS under authority delegated by Congress”
congress can shut down most of the fed gov’t. except boner and mccdumber. on to the cliff.
On the off chance nobody’s knocked him for this bit of insipidness:
A corporation is a legal individual with rights. That’s the whole point of incorporating.
Fucking idiot dipshit.
OK gang, once again I’ve had a lovely break taking part in this discussion, but I should be getting ready for my watch. The young’un will probably be looking for a fill-up in the next hour.
I’ll be back later if I can.
Until then my regards to all.
mittens 46% non romney 52% 95% reporting lost by 6 loser after 2 million spent
g’night Mr. Bob
It’s almost time for my European murder mystery. Tonight I’ll be watching something French with subtitles (usually it’s Swedish).
Just wanted to toss out an olive branch on this:
Nah, B. Moe. I’m guessing if we all show up here and talk about something else tomorrow it’ll be sunshine and laughter. People get irritated at one another while arguing. It happens.
you are a very angry person Mr. Ernst – the point is there’s no individual isn’t still free to catholic it up 6 times a week and twice on sundays
and the catholic church is not a corporation that’s just a weird idea nobody signed a health care contract with “the catholic church” and even if they did there would still be no individual catholic people what were unfree to exercise their religion
Happy, please stop it.
“you are a very angry person ”
Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum on Obamacare: “It’s Not Worth Getting Angry About” (Video)
“that’s just a weird idea nobody signed a health care contract with “the catholic church” ”
yo go cupkkkake
The “preventive service” moniker is Catholic baiting plain and simple, it seems to me, and effective Catholic baiting at that. That is, it’s hard to believe the administration has unintentionally stumbled into a blunder, so much as stabbed the poker right where they knew they’d draw an immediate response. Beyond that though, their motives are pretty near impenetrable to me.
I’d guess it’s a play to the base, sdferr. Just like Keystone.
I can . . . or I guess I can . . . assent to that readily enough bh, but in the main it seems so short sighted as to cause me to pull up, though, as I say, what would be next is so dark, I’ve no idea which way to take the model of their motives I’m attempting to construct.
I mean, they’re a waiver granting machine. Now, when there is a legitimate reason to grant some form of waiver they don’t?
Tagged “reproductive justice”:
Marcotte is fired up!
Amanda knows from screeching.
Sorry, .
I hear what you’re saying, sdferr.
This is a waiver granting machine, this administration. To not grant one here? Yeah, it’s intentional.
I guess that’s why I go to the Keystone analogy. It makes no sense whatsoever outside of just fucking with America for shits and giggles while giving some small subgroup of theirs a reason to pretend Obama is worthy of something other than open contempt.
leigh I still don’t see how anyone’s freedom to exercise their religion has been threatened
and if all the individuals rights to exercise his or her religion are intact, than the rights of the larger group or corporation would seem unimpinged to me
it would be nice to hear what the courts say… but we have to see I guess if Obama wants to veto whatever legislative response is worked out, if one gets passed
we don’t even know yet if anyone’s even gonna use their catholic-employer health plan for birth control pills – and I imagine that sort of thing would be confidential
Yeah, which is why I don’t get it. For these sorts of stupidities to make any sense in a long run political scheme, they’d have to know (or think they know) something certain about the outcome of the election (as in their favor, that is) apart from the obvious detriment these issues pay against their cause. All of which, being blank, just induces willies the like of which I’d rather not experience.
Did I mention this was a well-oiled, waiver-granting machine, this administration?
‘Cause they are.
the catholic church is not a corporation that’s just a weird idea
oh yeah
really? wow am I silly
If you’d make an effort to be less disdainful, I’d make an effort to be less contemptuous.
those aren’t churches those are schools and charity organizations Mr. Ernst
I hear ya, sdferr. I’m at a loss beyond my meager guesses. It doesn’t give me any pleasant feelings to ponder either.
hmm or maybe so… who knew?
I still don’t get how there’s a religious practice involved by a corporation signing a health care agreement
and I sure don’t think any person in particular’s rights are being violated over and above the kooky arbitrariness that inheres in all things obamacare
Happy I can’t make you see it if you aren’t willing to look. This has been going on for a very long time. For the sake of brevity, just go to “Piss Christ” or the Madonna with elephant’s dung adorning it. The Broadway plays with Jesus portrayed as a frolicing faggot, we’ve been vilified and defamed in film and literature. We take a beating in popular culture.
We’ve been patient through all the scandals and prayerful, too.
Enough is e-damned-nough.
tiny minorities of bases, brown shirts, black shirts, payoffs to established institutions felling threatened, long knives, it gets creepy after awhile.
feeling for felling. sheesh.
“how anyone’s freedom to exercise their religion has been threatened”
oh noes don’t shut down picachu’s health care for shinto stuff. my japs i keep in concentration fdr camps.
go mittens. la the zombie mind
In line with the keystone argument: many and perhaps most of those white working class voters Obama wrote off also happen to be Catholic.
And since he’s already got what he wanted from his Catholic supporters….
this is interesting from our content mill friends at ehow
“… can have their tax exemption revoked if they actively support any political candidate…”
That’s where government by waiver gets its traction. We know this.
We take a beating in popular culture.
yes you do I have to drive through Universal City every day and look at this billboard at least twice I told NG it was very disrepectful
“it would be nice to hear what the courts say”
why? some a((hole with a black robe is better than a catholic idiot with a black robe???? swiss cakes for you at this point.
real nuns aren’t like that I said
Mr. newrouter when courts say stuff lots of times there’s dissenting opinions too, so the whole affair can be very interesting where you encounter observations you never thought of
Bob Ross is on the tube right now painting happy little clouds.
Your argument is invalid.
“it’s also important to realize that an incorporated church gives the government an added measure of control. ”
link
Oh, you’d be surprised. Sister David — yes, that is a man’s name, but you should never joke about it — regularly looked at me like that when I was walking down the hall.
he’s still alive?
I have some Bob Ross avi’s somewheres
No, he’s way dead. My wife used to have a ton of his brushes she got somewheres.
“Mr. newrouter when courts say stuff lots of times there’s dissenting opinions too, ”
yes i can’t wait for the dissenting penumbra picachu. chop cough
it does say it was inspired by true events but I was skeptical
of course I also didn’t know the Catholic Church was a corporation
I get surprised a lot
Unlike some, the Church knows she cannot wash this blood away and so will be forced instead to wash away all the extraneous activities that she has engaged in for the betterment of mankind in this world.
That will be the outcome and is the desired outcome of the administration who have done this not just as a way of gaining the praise of their base but to further drive down all private charity while enlarging the public version. and wounding an old enemy at the same time.
This is similar to the long term goal of effecting the self elimination of all private healthcare insurance providers by setting before them a meal they can’t swallow without dieing and so they starve to death instead.
Nonprofit organizations under Section 501.c.3 can have their tax exemption revoked if they actively support any political candidate.
You do know where this came from, dontcha?
LBJ was running for senate and a non-profit campaigned mightily against him. So he won anyway and to punish the folks what opposed him he up and changed the IRS code to prohibit 501.c.3s from participating in politics.
Just like that.
And here we’ve been regarding it as horrible and obscene for churches to get involved in politics as if it were in the Bill of Rights.
The true events are probably she found some eighth graders making out in a locker room on the same day that someone drank half a bottle of wine from the sacristy. And maybe there were some firecrackers in someone’s locker.
That’d probably do it.
Newrouter posted 291 while I was typing my 298.
Also, what Geoffb pointed out about eliminating the competition by forcing churches and other private entities to give up their charitable services, the law having made it too onerous to continue.
That was up-thread a bit, but it needs repeating. THAT is their fell objective in mandating contraceptive coverage: first eliminate the Catholics, then find a way to eliminate everyone else, bit by bit.
“…someone drank half a bottle of wine from the sacristy…”
wwm-cabwsc* means trouble
*(worldwide market-cornering altar boy wine smuggling conspiracy)
The first rule of altar boy wine smuggling conspiracy is there is no altar boy wine smuggling conspiracy.
all we ever had for wine at church was mogen david which mom told me was ish and that we only drink it at church
she picked up that word ish when we lived in Minnesota and she took a liking to it
Ours was special Catholic wine that wasn’t even for sale at the liquor store where Lutherans or homeless people might be able to get at it.
I want a taste what else i remember about church wine was when our gay communist pastor first came and he changed it to where we took communion from a common cup and he would just hold it to your lips and tip it for you and then wipe it in between people with a cloth… that lasted like a couple years
wtf?
That’s just gross. But as far as I can remember we were all good sports about it.
Was the third rule “when no nun is credulous enough to believe rules one or two and taps your knuckles out, the non-existent conspiracy is over”?
here is a happy story what broke tonight for catholic folk and others of the lifeydoodle persuasion
Furor Erupts Over Susan G. Komen Halt Of Grants To Planned Parenthood
personally me I don’t really care I’m sure the Komen people will have no trouble spending their monies on helpful things
Ha! Past the second or third grade you couldn’t get any of us to crack with mere corporal punishment, sdferr. Especially over non-existent conspiracies.
Tattling (even on yourself) just compounds any sin you might be carrying around. Besides, that’s what confession is for. No nuns in the confessional. Which is quite a nice little loophole.
What chance, I wonder, that now and again a priest manning the confessional duty had himself been a non-conspirator at an earlier age? But, of course not. Nor had he a small flask of any sort in his back pocket.
Perish the thought.
OT: tied to the story about Alan West changing districts with Tom Rooney, it now appears Adam Hasner steps aside from his Fl. Senate run — kinda clearing the Sen. field for Connie Mack — to pursue West’s old district instead.
is he a squish or is that just his son?
Whose? Son, that is?
which connie is heading for the senate?
My old rep., #4 in the line of Cornielii, the Mary Bono one. He’s not a squish exactly, but he is very comfortable in an establishment role (and kinda slow on the uptake, I think). But he offered that Penny plan to address the deficit last year, which wasn’t a bad idea.
got it for some reason I thought he was a squish
He can do stuff that isn’t, well, shall we say robustly adherent to a Constitutional approach, at times? But his own knee-jerk, I think, is more conservative than not; the problem being, he’s exposed to cleverer men and given to swaying. And then there’s the pleasing the establishmentarians, for to advance in their ranks. This is a problem. (Which is why I was kinda looking forward to having a competition for the Senate seat. Still do.)
When I was in High School, way back in the 70s, it wasn’t uncommon for girls to get prescribed the pill to alleviate severe, debilitating menstrual cramping. I am positive there were Catholics on the company insurance plans paying for them. This has been going on for decades without a peep from the Church. The only thing different now is you are being compelled.
The compulsion is the issue, don’t get suckered into a losing argument.
That might very well be. But those Catholics weren’t required to be on the company insurance plan.
…to violate religious beliefs. Judging by recent SCOTUS decisions, this isn’t a losing argument.
Certainly compulsion is the issue … but sometimes it takes a real slap in the face to get point out what was “well, it’s not so bad and certainly they’ll stop here” has finally slipped down that oft-mocked slope to “WTF? How do they think they’ll get away with that?”
I wasn’t channeling Mandy upthread at all. The Left fumes all the time against religious exemptions because they want to destroy religion. How DARE any hospital not supply contraceptives and abortions… THEY ARE A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS. How DARE doctors refuse to learn or do abortions, they SERVE THE PUBLIC. Medical schools should be required to train ’em and if the person refuses they shouldn’t be allowed to be a doctor.
Don’t tell me you’ve never heard those arguments. The ACLU itself addresses the lack of training from time to time
Universities are compelling religious student organizations to open their leadership to anyone, including people who are hostile to the religion in question. New York has closed all their schools to religious organizations renting any part of the property while secular organizations still can. It actually took SCOTUS recently to remind the government it CANNOT make decisions on who can or cannot be a minister of a church.
There’s been assaults on individuals of faith – e.g. a wedding photographer sued because she declined to be hired for a lesbian wedding. And, as I said above, a hospital in New Jersey that told its nurses you WILL participate in abortions or be fired. It took a lawsuit to get them to back down regardless of all current exemption laws.
This “ruling” is just moving the anti-theist program into major religious organizations.
Certainly, ObamaCare’s mandate itself has been the main focus of anyone that is pro-Liberty. Showing how it encroaches even on First Amendment freedoms supports the arguments against ObamaCare, not weaken it.
Of course I have. But not in this thread, and that isn’t what I was advocating and you know it.
Many of the points you make in 320 are valid, but that isn’t what we are in a hissy fit about, is it? Which is my point, you are getting suckered again into making contraceptives the big issue and looking like ninnies in the pr battle.
making contraceptives the big issue
No, I’m making the First Amendment the Big Issue.
As the Left makes Women’s Health Rights* trumps 1st Amendment rights the Big Issue.
*Public institutions are not to be allowed to interfere with a Womyn’s Right no matter what.
I’m glad you came back, B. Moe.
I agree this has zip to do with birth control.
Yes. The Constitutional issue with Obama care is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. The issue with this rule is the First Amendment. Again, I hold that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Both are objectionable and both can and should be objected to.
I’m still hoping that the Catholic charities just tell the feds to suck it and keep on keepin’ on. Force Obama to send the Marshals to shut down some hospitals. That’ll make some really excellent news footage.
I’m thinking that is their strategy, Squid. I’ve worked at a number of Catholic hospitals and they aren’t easily pushed around.
Sure, it bears repeating. Which is why I made the argument in the post proper.
Dude, that was like 300 comments ago!
First it’s the armbands. Then the curfew. Then they tell you you can’t live in that neighborhood anymore. Then they tell you can’t work in that field anymore. Then they provide a train ride out of town.
Too over the top?
you forgot about how they take away your ephedra