Cardinal George: no Catholic hospitals in 2 years unless HHS mandate is rescinded

[Lovely Lane]

Do you know where this idea on 'religious conscience' and the 'exemption' derives from?

I'll be interested to hear your theory.

I'm working on one, thought you may have an answer since the RCC is front and center on this issue.

I'm guessing it is a political catch phrase stemming from a great leap (of faith) from the First Amendment. But I don't see a ruling from SCOTUS defining it. I don't see any real definition of it. Plus, how I would define it would apply to human beings not institutions.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I'm guessing it is a political catch phrase stemming from a great leap (of faith) from the First Amendment.

It isn't any "great leap of faith" to see the basis for "conscience protections. It doesn't take any leap at all. The First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make not law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " Quite simply, that means Congress can't make a law the infringes on a person's religious beliefs, and in this case those beliefs cover contraception. The Constitution makes no mention of the president "making" such a law, but that's because the Founders didn't envision the Executive Order. It can be safely assumed SCOTUS will indeed strike down the Empty Suit's mandate because it isn't constitutional. Period.

 

[Yarddog]

Do you know where this idea on 'religious conscience' and the 'exemption' derives from?

I'm working on one, thought you may have an answer since the RCC is front and center on this issue.

I'm guessing it is a political catch phrase stemming from a great leap (of faith) from the First Amendment. But I don't see a ruling from SCOTUS defining it. I don't see any real definition of it. Plus, how I would define it would apply to human beings not institutions.

No, freedom of thought(conscience) is in the basics of our Declaration and Bill of Rights.

Without freedom of conscience the Founding Fathers could not have declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Benjamin Franklin said "Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech".

SCOTUS ruled, "Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal" (Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

The UN Declaration on Human Rights, of which the US has signed, article 18 says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

As far as the "exemption" what exactly do you refer to in your question? Cardinal George does not speak of an exemption. Exemption can cover many things. The Church wants an "exemption" from the HHS ruling due to religious reasons.

 

[Lovely Lane]

It isn't any "great leap of faith" to see the basis for "conscience protections. It doesn't take any leap at all. The First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make not law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " Quite simply, that means Congress can't make a law the infringes on a person's religious beliefs, and in this case those beliefs cover contraception. The Constitution makes no mention of the president "making" such a law, but that's because the Founders didn't envision the Executive Order. It can be safely assumed SCOTUS will indeed strike down the Empty Suit's mandate because it isn't constitutional. Period.

I wish I had achieved as much in wearing a empty suit.

No, I don't agree with organizations having carte blanche in respect to 1st amendment, but that's why we have SCOTUS.

ps; I just thunk it, Obama just mobilized women voters in making this a women's right issue. And we know the ladies out number us guy's at the polls. Smooth move from that Empty Suit, (that must be one of those Armani deals)

 

[Lovely Lane]

No, freedom of thought(conscience) is in the basics of our Declaration and Bill of Rights.

Without freedom of conscience the Founding Fathers could not have declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Benjamin Franklin said "Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech".

SCOTUS ruled, "Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal" (Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

The UN Declaration on Human Rights, of which the US has signed, article 18 says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

As far as the "exemption" what exactly do you refer to in your question? Cardinal George does not speak of an exemption. Exemption can cover many things. The Church wants an "exemption" from the HHS ruling due to religious reasons.

That's a good start, I looked over those things already. But we need to focus on defining "religious conscience & religious conscience exemption". That is what the politicians are stating as well as religious leaders. So, some how it ties into 1st amendment, which is something I don't see.

WBS thinks it is 1st amendment plain and simple, but I don't see it. Then again, WBS believes he sees empty suits walking around.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I wish I had achieved as much in wearing a empty suit.

No, I don't agree with organizations having carte blanche in respect to 1st amendment, but that's why we have SCOTUS.

ps; I just thunk it, Obama just mobilized women voters in making this a women's right issue. And we know the ladies out number us guy's at the polls. Smooth move from that Empty Suit, (that must be one of those Armani deals)

Won't matter how many women the Empty Suit mobilizes (and this controversy isn't going to get that many of them moving, believe me) as long as gas prices keep going up, because the women will be voting against anti-domestic oil production as well.

 

[TheDag]

It isn't any "great leap of faith" to see the basis for "conscience protections. It doesn't take any leap at all. The First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make not law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " Quite simply, that means Congress can't make a law the infringes on a person's religious beliefs, and in this case those beliefs cover contraception. The Constitution makes no mention of the president "making" such a law, but that's because the Founders didn't envision the Executive Order. It can be safely assumed SCOTUS will indeed strike down the Empty Suit's mandate because it isn't constitutional. Period.

lets look at key words in there. Establishment of religion. That means starting a religion. Does the healthcare bill start a religion? nope so no problem there. Prohibiting free exercise thereof. Well no problem there either. It is not preventing an individual from exercising their religion. A organisation is being asked to do something that is all. They are being asked to provide cover for something. As yarddog has pointed out it depends on the motivations behind it. So where opponents of this bill have failed is it depends on the motivations of why this policy is being taken out. if the catholic church is forced to then they certainly can not be sinning according to yarddog because they are not taking it out with the intention of preventing pregnancy. So there is no cause for fuss. After all there is nowhere in the bible that states christians are supposed to force their views on others so there is no reason for the CC to oppose this.

 

[TheDag]

The UN Declaration on Human Rights, of which the US has signed, article 18 says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Can you provide evidence for this. My understanding is that nobody has signed the UNDHR. It was voted on but not a compulsory thing to follow. it has been said it should be compulsory but it isn't in the same way as the declaration Bill Clinton signed which was later revoked by George W Bush.

I haven't changed the "discussion" once, you have. You have gone away from issue bringing up other types of "life" insurance policies when the issue is a provision of the Health Insurance Bill. It would help if you stayed on topic.

I will say this again seem as you have missed it in my previous posts. it is relevent because it is ajn identical situation. A government has made it compulsory for insurance cover which includes something that goes against the CC beliefs and the church has remained silent. So why is the CC making a fuss over something now that goes against their beliefs in their opinion. Two identical situations yet different responses. What makes this situation worth talking about?


Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968
because typing in the word contraception is too difficult to manage.

 

[WinBySurrender]

lets look at key words in there. Establishment of religion. That means starting a religion. Does the healthcare bill start a religion? nope so no problem there. Prohibiting free exercise thereof. Well no problem there either. It is not preventing an individual from exercising their religion.

It doesn't apply only to individuals, but to faith communities. A law that forces an organization and its members to go against the doctrine of their faith -- i.e., being forced to fund contraception provision when they are adamantly opposed to contraception -- is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

A organisation is being asked to do something that is all. They are being asked to provide cover for something.

Something that is morally reprehensible to them. What part of that do you not understand?

As yarddog has pointed out it depends on the motivations behind it. So where opponents of this bill have failed is it depends on the motivations of why this policy is being taken out. if the catholic church is forced to then they certainly can not be sinning according to yarddog because they are not taking it out with the intention of preventing pregnancy.

The motivation for this policy is unclear, therefore you can't pretend to know why the mandate was issued, nor can you then argue that the motivation negates sin. That's a circular argument, invalid.

So there is no cause for fuss. After all there is nowhere in the bible that states christians are supposed to force their views on others so there is no reason for the CC to oppose this.

You have the dispute backwards. The RCC isn't forcing their views on anyone. The government is forcing the Empty Suit's views on the RCC.

 

[Yarddog]

Can you provide evidence for this. My understanding is that nobody has signed the UNDHR. It was voted on but not a compulsory thing to follow. it has been said it should be compulsory but it isn't in the same way as the declaration Bill Clinton signed which was later revoked by George W Bush.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is 60 years old. Here is the UN site.
Welcome to the United Nations

I will say this again seem as you have missed it in my previous posts. it is relevent because it is ajn identical situation.

It is not even close to an identical situation. The HHS is health insurance and you are giving Life insurance as an example.

A government has made it compulsory for insurance cover which includes something that goes against the CC beliefs and the church has remained silent.

Where has the US government made it compulsory to carry Life insurance for suicide or murder?

So why is the CC making a fuss over something now that goes against their beliefs in their opinion.

Because the US is now trying to make religious orgs provide coverage for something which goes against Church doctrine, which your examples do not fit.

Two identical situations yet different responses. What makes this situation worth talking about?

Because it is relevant in the US because our Constitution protects the freedom of religion from the government. I don't know what British law says about what the government can do in this issue. Maybe that is why you cannot wrap your head around this issue.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[Yarddog]

That's a good start, I looked over those things already. But we need to focus on defining "religious conscience & religious conscience exemption". That is what the politicians are stating as well as religious leaders.

Religious conscience or thought is the faith of believers, whatever that may be. The exemption, as far as the HHS is concerned would be that those whose faiths do not allow contraception would be exempt from the provision requiring birth control to be provided by insurance.

So, some how it ties into 1st amendment, which is something I don't see.

The Supreme Court tied freedom of thought(conscience) into the right to assemble and freedom of speech because without the ability to think freely freedom of speech is useless.

 

[brewmama]

I wish I had achieved as much in wearing a empty suit.

No, I don't agree with organizations having carte blanche in respect to 1st amendment, but that's why we have SCOTUS.

ps; I just thunk it, Obama just mobilized women voters in making this a women's right issue. And we know the ladies out number us guy's at the polls. Smooth move from that Empty Suit, (that must be one of those Armani deals)

Only women who can't think or see past the lie that this is a women's rights issue. No women's rights are being denied at all. Only the church's. And most people are able to see this.

 

[TheDag]

The Supreme Court tied freedom of thought(conscience) into the right to assemble and freedom of speech because without the ability to think freely freedom of speech is useless.

one is not being denied freedom of thought though so still I don't see it.

 

[WinBySurrender]

one is not being denied freedom of thought though so still I don't see it.

So, basically, you're saying "Keep those thoughts to yourself and don't let them spill out your mouth so I can hear them", right?

 

[Yarddog]

one is not being denied freedom of thought though so still I don't see it.

Freedom of thought and freedom of conscience is the same, legally speaking. If religious organizations are forced to go against their religious conscience, then our Constitutional liberties are violated.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Freedom of thought and freedom of conscience is the same, legally speaking. If religious organizations are forced to go against their religious conscience, then our Constitutional liberties are violated.

For sake of further discussion, could the same be true when my tax dollar goes to Catholic Charities. Say that Catholic Charities take in 3 Billion of Federal monies each year, being Protestant, the Catholic Charities in my mind, violate my religious conscience. Are not my Constitutional liberties violated?

I don't think the Bishops are seeing the big picture pass the RCC agenda. The slippery-slope of the constitutionality of WH Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships created by President 'W' Bush Executive Order,(compassionate conservatism), may soon be called into question when SCOTUS hears the forthcoming case this summer.

To review mandates of HHS, it is only fair to point to whom Federal monies goes. The RCC action in accepting monies from the very same government that defends many issues that the RCC adamantly opposes. Which goes to show that Billions of dollars in hand makes religious conscience argument moot.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Only women who can't think or see past the lie that this is a women's rights issue. No women's rights are being denied at all. Only the church's. And most people are able to see this.

Most people who?

Federal monies are pumped into Catholic Charities org,(Billions). As a tax paying citizen, why would one be discriminated against by being denied coverage by simply being an employee of a Catholic Charities org as opposed to a employee of a secular employer?

 

[Yarddog]

For sake of further discussion, could the same be true when my tax dollar goes to Catholic Charities.

You are against helping people in need? Catholic Charities is rated as one of the most efficient charities in the world. 90% of the money taken in goes to the services and 10% goes to operations.

Say that Catholic Charities take in 3 Billion of Federal monies each year, being Protestant, the Catholic Charities in my mind, violate my religious conscience.

It's not that much money but why would helping poor people or others in need violate your religious conscience? Aren't you a Christian? Jesus called for us to help those in need. You must have a terrible conscience.

Are not my Constitutional liberties violated?

Don't know. Are you against charity because you are Protestant?

I don't think the Bishops are seeing the big picture pass the RCC agenda.

What bigger picture is there other than God.

The slippery-slope of the constitutionality of WH Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships created by President 'W' Bush Executive Order,(compassionate conservatism), may soon be called into question when SCOTUS hears the forthcoming case this summer.

Could be.

To review mandates of HHS, it is only fair to point to whom Federal monies goes. The RCC action in accepting monies from the very same government that defends many issues that the RCC adamantly opposes. Which goes to show that Billions of dollars in hand makes religious conscience argument moot.

The Federal government gives the money to Catholic Charities because the CC is far better than the government at making sure that the people who need help, get the help.

 

[TheDag]

ahh the good ol argument by ridicule method has popped up again. Either that or your blinkers block out so much you just can't see. So lets deal with a few things you've said.

You are against helping people in need? Catholic Charities is rated as one of the most efficient charities in the world. 90% of the money taken in goes to the services and 10% goes to operations.

and I've been involved in charities where it is written in their by-laws that they are not allowed to take more than 5% so it would seem you are operating for profit!

It's not that much money but why would helping poor people or others in need violate your religious conscience? Aren't you a Christian? Jesus called for us to help those in need. You must have a terrible conscience.

maybe they think the catholic church is in grave error and I'm sure athiests think the catholic church is wrong so giving them moneysurely would be violating the conscience of those who object to the catholic church. if you can't understand that then it is because you don't want to.

Don't know. Are you against charity because you are Protestant?

if you want to get into a fight over who has more involvement in charity then I can assure you the salvation army has you beaten hands down! Catholic church may do more simply because of its size but when compared to actual involvement by members you aren't even close to the salvos.

 

[Lovely Lane]

My friend Yarddog...Q & A continued;

Originally Posted by Lovely Lane

For sake of further discussion, could the same be true when my tax dollar goes to Catholic Charities.
​

You are against helping people in need? Catholic Charities is rated as one of the most efficient charities in the world. 90% of the money taken in goes to the services and 10% goes to operations.

Why is it you get offensive when I ask question or challenge your opinions, especially of Catholic tax-exempt org's who rake in Billions of $$ from Federal gov?

Originally Posted by Lovely Lane

Say that Catholic Charities take in 3 Billion of Federal monies each year, being Protestant, the Catholic Charities in my mind, violate my religious conscience.
​

It's not that much money but why would helping poor people or others in need violate your religious conscience? Aren't you a Christian? Jesus called for us to help those in need. You must have a terrible conscience.

Prove it, post 2011 monies from Federal Gov. Now, instead of answering the question you attack me by asking if I'm Christian and question my Conscience. Yarddog, if you don't feel up to answering my questions , then don't. Don't insult me.

Originally Posted by Lovely Lane

Are not my Constitutional liberties violated?
​

Don't know. Are you against charity because you are Protestant?

I'm not against charities, And you continue not answer my question. Don't get puffed up about it, obvious you responded to my questions to deflect the inquiry away from Catholic Charities & RCC.

Originally Posted by Lovely Lane

I don't think the Bishops are seeing the big picture pass the RCC agenda.
​

What bigger picture is there other than God.

cute, if you don't want to or can't answer questions about this issue then don't. No reason to be puffed up about it.

Originally Posted by Lovely Lane

The slippery-slope of the constitutionality of WH Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships created by President 'W' Bush Executive Order,(compassionate conservatism), may soon be called into question when SCOTUS hears the forthcoming case this summer.

Could be.​

right

​

Originally Posted by Lovely Lane

To review mandates of HHS, it is only fair to point to whom Federal monies goes. The RCC action in accepting monies from the very same government that defends many issues that the RCC adamantly opposes. Which goes to show that Billions of dollars in hand makes religious conscience argument moot.
​

The Federal government gives the money to Catholic Charities because the CC is far better than the government at making sure that the people who need help, get the help.

No, that is not the full truth. The Catholic Charities org receives Federal Monies because it applies for them.
Attacking HHS, is equal to (same as), attacking the hand that feeds you!

Blow-back, is a powerful force. Religious leaders and organizations have a good thing going in cashing in on Federal Monies, why ruin it? Perhaps, because of hunger of greed and drunk on power. When the religious leaders go to public forums (radio, tv, internet) and complain of government infringement, the citizens have a tendency to push-back. Especially when a case is made to millions of unemployed, millions of non-religious, millions of all others, that religious organizations have are accepting Billions of $$ yearly and force their employees to go without full medical coverage as their secular counterparts must provide.

Yarddog if you don't want to talk about the RCC and Catholic Charities regarding this issue I understand.