Well, first there was the warning from several Catholic priests regarding the birth control mandate, (two of which I have included here and here). Obama, and his administration, did not move.
Then, there was the outcry from a large portion of the Catholic population against it. (A problem recognized and voiced by Rep. John Flemming and others.) Still, the Obama administration would not waiver.
Dozens of Catholic entities, from schools to dioceses to higher learning institutions, filed legal documents today against Obama and the United States government... Suing them.
This, over a birth control mandate that could have been amended to allow exception for those who find the requirement to be against their values. Such an exception would have removed the major opposition from the Catholic church, thus allowing this mandate to go through smoothly by comparison.
However, the Obama administration did not yield, and as of today, now has a major headache rising.
Incidentally, Some of the bigger names suing the President and his administration are:
The University of Notre Dame
Archdiocese of Washington
Archdiocese of New York
Archdiocese of Michigan
The Catholic University of America
Thoughts?
This President doesn't respect religion or faith. He doesn't understand what it means to have a CONVICTION about something. He hanged arround with a terrorist and went to a gdamerica preacher. Sarah Palin tried to warn us in 2008. But the media was too busy making fun of her daughter to notice. This is what we got. This is the fundamental transformation of America. Its an obamanation, it really is.
So I guess health care can be used to control religion. Another case of liberal intolerance. Forcing your views on others. That is what any mandate is about. Same ole control freaks.
Control religion? I thought Christ was the head of the church and the One in control?
Liberal intolerance? Wanting women who desire and need birth control (many of whom are Catholic) is intolerance? Or is it intolerant to deny that medical benefit to those who want it?
Forcing views on others? Would not the Catholic church be forcing their views regarding birth control onto the many non-Catholic women they employ?
What this mandate is about is NOT forcing any woman who does not want birth control to use it. It IS about making it available to women who DO want it, many of who are themselves Catholic. This mandate is more about freedom of choice vs. the church's desire to control their membership, thus the lawsuit. It does not mean any woman in the Catholic church HAS to now use birth control.
__________________
___________________
They only call it class warfare when we fight back!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Control religion? I thought Christ was the head of the church and the One in control?
Liberal intolerance? Wanting women who desire and need birth control (many of whom are Catholic) is intolerance? Or is it intolerant to deny that medical benefit to those who want it?
Forcing views on others? Would not the Catholic church be forcing their views regarding birth control onto the many non-Catholic women they employ?
What this mandate is about is NOT forcing any woman who does not want birth control to use it. It IS about making it available to women who DO want it, many of who are themselves Catholic. This mandate is more about freedom of choice vs. the church's desire to control their membership, thus the lawsuit. It does not mean any woman in the Catholic church HAS to now use birth control.
Pssssst...! Stamperben, they can still get birth control, they just have to, horror of horrors, pay for it themselves. I don't think the RCC even cares if they just need it for medical reasons, I think it's mostly paying for it for the express purpose of birth control.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Click the image for the collection. Latest card(s): Tom Coburn, Godwin's Law (L) and Godwin's Law (D)
The OP is confusing the stated position of the Catholic "establishment" with that of the average Catholic voter.
The OP is confusing nothing, JG.
"Waking The Sleeping Giant" is a play on the closing statements by Father John Howell. As for "Obama v Catholicism," that is essentially what these lawsuits are.
The subject line is literally accurate; if sentiment is not, may I suggest becoming something other than Catholic?
Originally Posted by Blayz
Yeah, but there's a cemetery too. Die already!
Apology accepted, thanks.
No problem- and HA!
Originally Posted by stamperben
Forcing views on others? Would not the Catholic church be forcing their views regarding birth control onto the many non-Catholic women they employ?
They made the choice to work for an institution that DOES NOT SUPPORT OR ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL. You honestly advocate that fact changes because of a Mandate?
Originally Posted by stamperben
What this mandate is about is NOT forcing any woman who does not want birth control to use it. It IS about making it available to women who DO want it, many of who are themselves Catholic. This mandate is more about freedom of choice vs. the church's desire to control their membership, thus the lawsuit. It does not mean any woman in the Catholic church HAS to now use birth control.
No. It only means that the Catholic employers have to violate their conscience to comply with a Mandate that should never have been issued in the manner it was. Forget the fact that Obama specifically promised an exception for those who find it morally reprehensible, and did not deliver!
__________________
O=-=-=O
Latest blog entry: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O=-=-=O
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Oh, and just so everyone understands- I am personally not against birth control. (When it's actually birth control, that is.)
However, I am against a government that too often steps over the boundaries of the Constitution- And this is one such example. It is not nearly as great a step as was the Patriot Act, but it is such a step.
__________________
O=-=-=O
Latest blog entry: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O=-=-=O
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is the goverment demanding a church with a long history of being opposed to birthcontrol/abortion, every woman that hired with the church knew its position, and still went to work for them.
This is easily fixed, end employers involvement in health care. It started out as a perk for working, now it has evolved into a mandate.
Make the individual responsible for their insurance need, rather then depend on the company to decide which cut rate insurer that worker can get.
If the employer doesn't pay, the employer doesn't get a say or have a responsibility to any religion to not pay for something.
The churches offer health insurance now, (well some use to, but have ended it prior to Obama's mandate.) but they will either have to stop offering it, or go against their religion.
Basically, Obama care requires a church to go against a long time policy, which is making a law impeding the free exercise of religion.
It doesn't matter if 99.9% of Catholic women use bc, the churches position for centuries has been artificial birth control is wrong. The link even says "Interuptus" is wrong according to the bible. See paragraph "The first mention".
If an individual was prevented from getting birth control by religious laws,
I would be against it. But women can get any and all birth control they want, they just pay for it themselves.
Birth control pills are available only with a prescription; getting one requires visiting a doctor for a pelvic exam and sexually transmitted disease tests. This can cost $35 to $200, or a copay of $10 to $30 for patients covered by health insurance.
So if a womans health insurance is cancelled so the church doesn't go against their beliefs, the woman would pay $35-200 just to get the prescription for bc.
initial cost:
Obamacare birthcontrol cost-could be worst case $250 initial($200 for Dr visit(no insurance) and $50 for the newer bc.)
without the mandate; worst case $80($10-30 for Dr visit, plus at worst $50 for bc)
What are they fighting for? Low cost birth control or a power play against religion?
__________________ If you haven't had enough, vote for Obama, I'm pretty sure we haven't hit Bar-rock bottom...yet. 6 trillion more debt, What would it have been if the Congress of "NO" was alittle more agreeable?
is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.(but) in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.” Obama makes it known, he will work to ban assault weapons and handguns.
Do you see what I'm saying, here? One of the most foundational principles of our country is the freedom to live and act as one sees fit, free of government tyranny. Mennonites are free to wear plain clothing and a cap on their hair; Muslims are free to pray to Mecca and observe their holy days; Jews are free to go to Synagogue, read the Torah and break glasses underfoot- Witches are allowed to hold white/black mass (depending upon the brand), and Natives are still allowed the use of peyote. Remove any of these things, and it is a harmful issue.
But the right to practice one's religion is not absolute. CS parents aren't allowed to withhold antibiotics from a son with bacterial meningitis, or deny insulin to a daughter in diabetic ketoacidosis. That crackpot Mormon cult leader couldn't avoid prosecution for sexual assault of a minor by claiming his religion permittted him to marry a 12 year old. There are situations where the public interest overrides free exercise. Ideally, these will be rare case-by-case determinations which courts will have to make. I'm not arguing that providing insurance coverage for contraceptives and elective abortion qualifies as such a public interest exception. Actually, I strongly doubt that it does. But there ought to be a compromise. I would think that employees of the RCC could work out optional coverage for such benefits that could be bought at the employees' expense by those who want it. Maybe it's not fair that church employees have to pay extra for such insurance. But if the church finds it has a hard time attracting employees because of their insurance limitations, then they'll have to rethink it. And that's as it should be.
This highlights the larger issue of the problems created by employer-provided health insurance. Your health policy should belong to you, not your employer. You should be able to buy whatever coverage you want and it should be no business of your employer. Until we end the stupid, sensless way we get health insurance in this country, we'll keep having these conflicts.
__________________ You know you got to go through hell
before you get to heaven...
Your health policy should belong to you, not your employer.
Bingo! But you see, as long as YOU are not the one PAYING for it, it is NOT yours.
Originally Posted by jayem
You should be able to buy whatever coverage you want and it should be no business of your employer.
Absolutely, provided you are the one purchasing it, and not your employer. Even if your employer puts a single dollar into the pot, they have the right to know what their money is buying, and they have the right to quibble.
There are two perfectly good solutions here:
1) Become something other than Catholic, (or find another employer outside of the Catholic realm);
2) Pay for your own insurance.
__________________
O=-=-=O
Latest blog entry: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O=-=-=O
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"I'm suing you for telling me that I can't discriminate against my employees in a secular workplace based on their religion".
This is a non-issue. It's the most egregious example of victim complex to come out of religion since anti-marriage advocates started insisting that gay marriage would force them to do things (when it never did). This mandate is a mandate to secular businesses that birth control options be made available to women who want it. It does not effect purely religious organizations and no woman will be forced to utilize or accept it. If Catholics are THIS unhappy, then they should quit their secular jobs and work only for the church because I guarantee there are plenty of other secular things they have to do related to their job.
Really, I'm getting awfully sick and tired of religious people essentially walking into a McDonalds and the complaining that they're forcing them to eat meat. You can't force your religion down people simply because YOU chose to work at a non-religious institution. We're not a theocracy.
They can file as many suits as they want. The courts are gonna get it and go "Is this a joke? No, you can't deny this to your employees just because YOU happen to be Catholic. Get over it."
Is it possible, just possible, that maybe the American electorate would do well to pay some attention to, you know, some actual issues that might effect the country in some meaningful way? Like proper economic management, taxation, appropriate defence spending and deployment, rather than obsessing on this bumper sticker sound bite ephemera?
Maybe a little less focus on contraception and a little more on employment and education, maybe?
(I know, I know, incoming flamestorm about what's really important in 3...2...1...)
Linear Mode
