Thirteen Catholic Senators Vote Against Religious Liberty

[Guest]

To quote Thomas Paine..."These are the times that try men's souls..... Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered"

Thirteen Catholic Senators Vote Against Religious Liberty | LifeNews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/01/thirteen-catholic-senators-vote-against-religious-liberty/)

[Guest]

I commend them. :angel:

[Guest]

Good for them. They believe in a separation of church and state and therefore, do not let their religious beliefs get in the way of their duty to country.

[Guest]

So, my feeling that Catholic people are fine upstanding American Christians. It is the leaders of the chruch that is twisted in their thinking.

[Guest]

They have excommunicated themselves.

[Guest]

It sounds as though the original poster of this thread is in favor of the USA being a Theocracy where the Catholic church is the ultimate ruler. That idea makes me want to throw up.

[Guest]

They have excommunicated themselves.

Along with a vast percentage of catholics. :doh:

[Guest]

To quote Thomas Paine..."These are the times that try men's souls..... Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered"

Thirteen Catholic Senators Vote Against Religious Liberty | LifeNews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/01/thirteen-catholic-senators-vote-against-religious-liberty/)What's this got to do with religion or religious liberty? It was a straight party line vote. The Catholic Democrats voted yea and the Republican Catholics voted nay.

This was a simply another vote on whether the Republicans would support anything done by the Obama administration.

[Guest]

What's this got to do with religion or religious liberty? It was a straight party line vote. The Catholic Democrats voted yea and the Republican Catholics voted nay.

This was a simply another vote on whether the Republicans would support anything done by the Obama administration.

What you say is true if you discount the issue of religious freedom. To vote against religious freedom cannot be a partisan issue. In today's U.S.; I guess even First Amendment Rights are partisan.

[Guest]

removing the R or D would cause many to roll over into a funk and disabled without the ability to distinguish!!

btk

[Guest]

I was just thinking how my father wanted me to go to law school, as he did. Maybe, I should have after hearing the testimony of as Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, and that we should pay for their birth control. I thought law school would be boring.

[Guest]

Geez, Richie, not you too...

Go ahead - find the quote where Fluke said they were having so much sex they were going broke.

Here's what she said according to an article I found on digitaljournal.com


Fluke had appeared before Congress on February 23. She told Congress that the Jesuit institution, Georgetown University, does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. She said that without an insurance coverage, contraception can cost female students more than $3,000. According to BBC, Fluke's testimony included the case of a student who needed birth control services in a case of ovarian cysts but because Georgetown University does not cover birth control in its student health plan, the student could not convince the insurance company she was ill.


My own daughter needed birth control to regulate her periods. Among other things, that reduces her risk of developing cancer later in life. I'm fortunate in that my insurance plan can cover her for a little longer. Also, it's not like what SHE needed cost $3000 - but when you're in entry-level jobs, everything you pay for hits the budget harder.

[Guest]

I was just thinking how my father wanted me to go to law school, as he did. Maybe, I should have after hearing the testimony of as Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, and that we should pay for their birth control. I thought law school would be boring.


Funny story.

I went to BYU Law School for about 10 days back in late August-September of 1982. Anyway, if you have seen any movies about the First Year of Law School, the professors call on you and try to make their students squirm by pushing their logic to absurd extremes. This is called the Socratic Method. Kind of like being on cross- examination as a hostile witness while your friends and family look on. It is very humiliating for a while.

The school had a rule that anyone with a baby-- not sure how they defined "baby"-- would not be called on during the First Year of Law School.

No Socratic Method for those whose babies were keeping them up at night.

Well, I really wanted to get married and have a baby all before the First Lecture of Criminal Law.

I had already attracted a very stunning Mormon girl who was looking to nab a Mormon law student. She made moves on me as soon as she knew I was a law student. She did not know I was not a Mormon. We had to arrived at the conversation about "Where did you do your mission?" All good Mormons are required to do Missionary Work.

And, I had a Puerto Rican ballet dancer as an on-campus roommate who was a recent convert to Mormonism who wanted to convert me as soon as he learned I was not a Mormon. I could not get much studying done in that environment.

I dropped out of BYU Law School after 10 days or so.

Very different culture as women were concerned at BYU when compared with the U of MN Law School which I went to in 1986 after getting a Masters Degree at the U of Denver in Librarianship in 1984. I graduated from the U of MN Law School in 1989 despite the Socratic Method.

[Guest]

Geez, Richie, not you too...

Go ahead - find the quote where Fluke said they were having so much sex they were going broke.

Here's what she said according to an article I found on digitaljournal.com



My own daughter needed birth control to regulate her periods. Among other things, that reduces her risk of developing cancer later in life. I'm fortunate in that my insurance plan can cover her for a little longer. Also, it's not like what SHE needed cost $3000 - but when you're in entry-level jobs, everything you pay for hits the budget harder.

The key word in your post should be that her statement "included" what you posted. She said other things besides your cherry-picked comment.

She spoke of her fellow students going broke paying for contraceptives. She tried to make the point that the Catholic College she's going to is unreasonably using it's First Amendment protections to deny it's female underclassmen from the consequences of the all the sex they are having by denying to pay for their contraceptives.

I don't care how you sugarcoat it, it's the gist of her comments. You can find her "testimony" if you look for it.

[Guest]

He still has no right to call her or anyone else a slut and prostitute. Also watched the entire session and she did not say anything close to your claims. You are lying about what she said.

[Guest]

I was just thinking how my father wanted me to go to law school, as he did. Maybe, I should have after hearing the testimony of as Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, and that we should pay for their birth control. I thought law school would be boring.

Keeping up grades could be a problem :o

[Guest]

He still has no right to call her or anyone else a slut and prostitute. Also watched the entire session and she did not say anything close to your claims. You are lying about what she said.

I'm a liar??; not according to this news report. This activist "testified" that 40% of the law students at Georgetown are going broke pay for contraceptives. If this wasn't "close" to my "claims", I don't know what is.

I know you won't apologize for calling me a liar. I don't expect that much character.

Rush Limbaugh under fire for 'slut' comment - Fox News Video - Fox News (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1485792519001/rush-limbaugh-under-fire-for-slut-comment/)

[Guest]

I have no idea how much contraceptives cost. They probably are covered by the pharmacy at Wal-Mart and most things at Wal-Mart are $4 a month.

How could someone go broke at that price?

[Guest]

I have no idea how much contraceptives cost. They probably are covered by the pharmacy at Wal-Mart and most things at Wal-Mart are $4 a month.

How could someone go broke at that price?

This woman said the contraceptives are costing these co-eds about $3000.00 a year. Seriously.

[Guest]

Not correct - the quote I saw was that it could cost $3000 while in college. That actually lines up with the costs my daughter encountered over her 4 years at Arcadia University.

Once again, like assuming Fluke was 23, it appears that the news is getting some of the fact a little sideways. (Not that it's anything new - anytime I've ever seen something in person, when I read about it in the news they do seem to get a surprising number of things wrong)

[Guest]

Good for them. They believe in a separation of church and state and therefore, do not let their religious beliefs get in the way of their duty to country.

Exactly

[Guest]

Not correct - the quote I saw was that it could cost $3000 while in college. That actually lines up with the costs my daughter encountered over her 4 years at Arcadia University.

Once again, like assuming Fluke was 23, it appears that the news is getting some of the fact a little sideways. (Not that it's anything new - anytime I've ever seen something in person, when I read about it in the news they do seem to get a surprising number of things wrong)

That's what I meant. I wrote "a year" in error.

[Guest]

A little outdated.

Walmartstores.com: Walmart Launches Phase Two Of Prescription Program With New $4 Medications And Increased Savings (http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/6747.aspx)

[Guest]

Good for them. They believe in a separation of church and state and therefore, do not let their religious beliefs get in the way of their duty to country.

Exactly

"Duty to country"??........free contraceptives to co-eds attending a Catholic University is "duty to county"??

Anyway....this trumps First Amendment protection under the U.S. Constitution?

I think the Founders thought this stipulation to the Constitution to be pretty important. They enacted it first. I wouldn't be so quick to dump this if I were you.

[Guest]

Throw these catholic extremists some tax bills if they want to dictate federal law. That will shut them up.

[Guest]

A little outdated.

Walmartstores.com: Walmart Launches Phase Two Of Prescription Program With New $4 Medications And Increased Savings (http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/6747.aspx)

Nice try Posh. However, you are like a salmon swimming upstream! It is really of no use to post rationally on a forum where absurdity reigns...GOOD LUCK!

[Guest]

Nice try Posh. However, you are like a salmon swimming upstream! It is really of no use to post rationally on a forum where absurdity reigns...GOOD LUCK!

One must amuse oneself on a blustery Virginia day.

[Guest]

Defending your Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion is now considered "extreme"??

Is this what our nation is going? Are we to lose our rights due to Presidential edict?

Wasn't our country founded to escape the tyranny of monarchs?

[Guest]

Oh, I get it now. Our Representatives and Senators should vote according to whatever religion they belong to. Hey, that is a theocracy! Santorum wants to throw up after hearing JFK say he does not want religion and politics to mix. Now, this is a man who believes in the Constitution, isn't it?

[Guest]

Oh, I get it now. Our Representatives and Senators should vote according to whatever religion they belong to. Hey, that is a theocracy! Santorum wants to throw up after hearing JFK say he does not want religion and politics to mix. Now, this is a man who believes in the Constitution, isn't it?

BINGO. But some will not get it.

[Guest]

Oh, I get it now. Our Representatives and Senators should vote according to whatever religion they belong to. Hey, that is a theocracy! Santorum wants to throw up after hearing JFK say he does not want religion and politics to mix. Now, this is a man who believes in the Constitution, isn't it?

I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you saying that our representative have the power, if they choose, to vote to negate the protected right of Freedom of Religion as guaranteed by our Constituion?

Somehow Freedom of Religion has been bastardized to somehow equate to a "theocracy"? How did that happen.

Aren't you just saying the Church's rights have to be forfeited to the edicts of the State?

[Guest]

What about "equal protection under the law" for the people who work for a Catholic hospital or school?

Mind you, I don't agree with the mandate of Obamacare, but, given that it's the law (for now), why should it matter to a nurse if she works for a Catholic hospital versus any other kind.

What it's boiling down to is - how far does the Church's religious protections go and where does it collide with an individual's rights?

[Guest]

What about "equal protection under the law" for the people who work for a Catholic hospital or school?

Mind you, I don't agree with the mandate of Obamacare, but, given that it's the law (for now), why should it matter to a nurse if she works for a Catholic hospital versus any other kind.

What it's boiling down to is - how far does the Church's religious protections go and where does it collide with an individual's rights?

You have no constitutional right to infringe on another's constitutional rights.

What is the Constitutional Right than calls to having your wants and needs paid for by another citizen?

Especially, how do you have a right to demand something, and for free, from a religious institution which prohibits it as a tenet of their faith?

I don't think the colonists were fighting for government mandated drugs to be provided for free from an institution that prohibits these drugs as a tenet and teaching of their faith.

This really is a simple issue. I don't understand why you are clouding it.

[Guest]

Richie - because it's not just about "religious freedom". We're finding a situation where "religious expression" is colliding with other parts of the Constitution - as I mentioned.

Ok, so I'm guilty of using the "Socratic Method" of argument at times, but what if it were a religion's tenet that blacks couldn't work for them, or some other law that other businesses have to follow?

On one side, you have people defending the Church saying "well, if you don't want to follow those rules, don't work there". Fair enough. But what about the other side where someone says to the Church "if you can't follow the laws of society, then don't operate there"?

Using your first line - the Church has no right telling a nurse that he or she can't have the same protection under the law that a fellow nurse at, say Boston's Beth Israel-Deaconess Hospital has.

...and just to be clear, I'm *still* opposed to the purchasing mandate aspect of Obamacare.

[Guest]

Richie - because it's not just about "religious freedom". We're finding a situation where "religious expression" is colliding with other parts of the Constitution - as I mentioned.

Ok, so I'm guilty of using the "Socratic Method" of argument at times, but what if it were a religion's tenet that blacks couldn't work for them, or some other law that other businesses have to follow?

On one side, you have people defending the Church saying "well, if you don't want to follow those rules, don't work there". Fair enough. But what about the other side where someone says to the Church "if you can't follow the laws of society, then don't operate there"?

Using your first line - the Church has no right telling a nurse that he or she can't have the same protection under the law that a fellow nurse at, say Boston's Beth Israel-Deaconess Hospital has.

...and just to be clear, I'm *still* opposed to the purchasing mandate aspect of Obamacare.

I don't know why you think your "what if's" are useful. I disagree.

There is no part of this argument to show that someone is being denied their Constitutional Rights by being denied free contraceptive drugs from the Catholic Church in violation of the Church's Constitutional Rights.

What's so hard to understand here?

[Guest]

It's not about the drugs.

It's about equal protection under the law.

It's about whether or not a Catholic (or other religiously affiliated) hospital can have different rules for their employees versus the rest of the 'secular' workplace.

[Guest]

It's not about the drugs.

It's about equal protection under the law.

It's about whether or not a Catholic (or other religiously affiliated) hospital can have different rules for their employees versus the rest of the 'secular' workplace.

A law that would take away someone's (The Church's) Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion, is unconstitutional, and thus, invalid.

No subsequent law can override your Constitutional protections.

Are you trying to tell me that all companies issue identical medical coverages? You know that's not true.....so where's your "equal protection", there?

No one is provided contraceptive drugs at a Catholic run institution. That sounds "equal" to me.

There's no way to get around the Church's Constitutional Rights, DJ, without violating the Constitution. It's as clear as anything can be.

[Guest]

A law that would take away someone's (The Church's) Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion, is unconstitutional, and thus, invalid.

No subsequent law can override your Constitutional protections.

Are you trying to tell me that all companies issue identical medical coverages? You know that's not true.....so where's your "equal protection", there?No one is provided contraceptive drugs at a Catholic run institution. That sounds "equal" to me.

There's no way to get around the Church's Constitutional Rights, DJ, without violating the Constitution. It's as clear as anything can be.

If that is a fact, that is a very good point.

[Guest]

If that is a fact, that is a very good point.

Thank you.......finally. I've been trying awfully hard to get at least one point across.

[Guest]

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, there are certain minimums that a company HAS to follow.

So the government has said, in order to meet the (IMO, unconstitutional) mandate, your insurance has to cover birth control. This is like how Massachusetts said that health insurance had to include chiropractic care. In New Hampshire, if you don't have certain levels of auto insurance and you get into an accident, your license is pulled.

No, all insurance companies don't offer the same - but NONE of them can break the law and claim they're providing the service. What if it were "pre-existing conditions" that the Church wanted to exclude? The law says you can't do that anymore - but if the Church said "we're not responsible for the employees actions before they came under our employment", would that be legal?

Running a hospital is not the free exercise of religion. You can argue that it's an extension of it - but it's not central to it.

Don't get me wrong, Richie, I *do* see the point you're trying to make. I simply believe that the individual's right to equal protection trumps the Church's "right" to extend it's morality (for good or bad) outside the walls of the Church.

What if the First Church of Christ Scientist ran a soup kitchen and only provided "health insurance" for a prayer specialist? There was a famous case in MA some years back about a couple that let their child die from a bowel obstruction. They only took the kid to a prayer specialist, refusing "conventional" care. The court case had their defense based on religious freedom but they were found guilty of (I believe) negligent homicide.

Yes, that's an extreme (there goes my Socratic Method style again), but do you at least understand where I'm coming from?

It's kind of like how the Church *can* serve wine to a minor as part of the sacrament of the Eucharist but, outside the Church, they certainly cannot.

[Guest]

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, there are certain minimums that a company HAS to follow.

So the government has said, in order to meet the (IMO, unconstitutional) mandate, your insurance has to cover birth control. This is like how Massachusetts said that health insurance had to include chiropractic care. In New Hampshire, if you don't have certain levels of auto insurance and you get into an accident, your license is pulled.

Don't get me wrong, Richie, I *do* see the point you're trying to make. I simply believe that the individual's right to equal protection trumps the Church's "right" to extend it's morality (for good or bad) outside the walls of the Church.

I think you've got this so turned around in your head that you're not thinking logically about this any more.

I'm getting a little weary of repeating this but let me try again.

You've got to start and end this conversation with the United State's Constitutional First Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion.

You cannot force the Catholic Church to accept and do something that is against it's tenets and teachings, for any reason, whatsoever.

There is no more debate needed once you accept that the Church has rights, and it's the State that is trying to take away those rights.

The examples you give are not violations of anyone's Constitutional Rights and therefore are irrelevant to the conversation. Who cares about chiropractic care coverage in Massachusetts? It has nothing do with our Constitutional debate.

The Church cannot prevent anyone from purchasing and using contraceptives against it's belief and teaching that to do so is unnatural and morally wrong to utilize.

The State cannot issue a law that the Church must provide something from it's own hand and it's own expense that violates this Constitutionally protected belief.

It's the State trying to violate the Church's rights. The Church is not violating anyone's rights.

There's no way to twist this debate with any intellectual honesty about the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

[Guest]

I think you've got this so turned around in your head that you're not thinking logically about this any more.

I'm getting a little weary of repeating this but let me try again.

You've got to start and end this conversation with the United State's Constitutional First Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion.

You cannot force the Catholic Church to accept and do something that is against it's tenets and teachings, for any reason, whatsoever.

There is no more debate needed once you accept that the Church has rights, and it's the State that is trying to take away those rights.

The examples you give are not violations of anyone's Constitutional Rights and therefore are irrelevant to the conversation. Who cares about chiropractic care coverage in Massachusetts? It has nothing do with our Constitutional debate.

The Church cannot prevent anyone from purchasing and using contraceptives against it's belief and teaching that to do so is unnatural and morally wrong to utilize.

The State cannot issue a law that the Church must provide something from it's own hand and it's own expense that violates this Constitutionally protected belief.

It's the State trying to violate the Church's rights. The Church is not violating anyone's rights.

There's no way to twist this debate with any intellectual honesty about the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution.


:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

Show me where any church is *required* to operate a hospital as part of it's religion.

You trot out the First Ammendment - and, yes, I get where you're coming from.

I trot out the 14th:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The last 14 words in particular.

So the Church would object to what an insurance company does with the money given to them by the church when it comes to birth control. Ok, I'll ignore (for the time being) all the OTHER things that an insurance company would do with that money that would go against the Church's teachings.

The difference between the check to the insurance company and the check to the employee is....?

The insurance premiums are part of the employee's compensation package. But that's a different part of the argument.

The Church has no right to say "this law doesn't apply to us outside the walls of the Church". *Inside* the walls - different story.

Again, if it were the First Church of Christ Scientist and not the Catholic Church, could THEY offer "health insurance" that didn't even include doctors - just prayer advisors?

[Guest]

Too many "what ifs" in these posts for me. You can make a mountain out of a mole hill with "what ifs"

[Guest]

Show me where any church is *required* to operate a hospital as part of it's religion.

You trot out the First Ammendment - and, yes, I get where you're coming from.

I trot out the 14th:


The last 14 words in particular.

So the Church would object to what an insurance company does with the money given to them by the church when it comes to birth control. Ok, I'll ignore (for the time being) all the OTHER things that an insurance company would do with that money that would go against the Church's teachings.

The difference between the check to the insurance company and the check to the employee is....?

The insurance premiums are part of the employee's compensation package. But that's a different part of the argument.

The Church has no right to say "this law doesn't apply to us outside the walls of the Church". *Inside* the walls - different story.

Again, if it were the First Church of Christ Scientist and not the Catholic Church, could THEY offer "health insurance" that didn't even include doctors - just prayer advisors?

OMG!!; are this is getting infuriating.

The Church being "required" to open a hospital, or university I'll add as that's what we were discussing ??

The Church has the right to open a hospital or university. You have the right to go elsewhere for your employment once you understand what the unhidden and open limits of your provided health care insurance coverage will be once you accept employment.

You have no Constitutionally expected right to receive a job at a Catholic Institution, and no Constitutionally expected right to receive anything, once hired, to anything outside of the Church's doctrine.

You can play with numbers, but if it's part of an employees coverage, the Church is providing it no matter how you skew the numbers on where the funds are designated as originating.

There is a way around this. The government can just provide free contraceptives for everyone to be dispensed at any of the numerous government agencies, or through the mail. This would be much easier than trying to twist the clear meaning of the First Amendment.

[Guest]

Losing it. :confused:

[Guest]

Losing it. :confused:

One is good at wordsmithing, but Mr Long is just to bright for anyone to dispute. I love reading his posts.

[Guest]

Losing it. :confused:

You still haven't found what you're losing. I hope you find it soon.

[Guest]

One is good at wordsmithing, but Mr Long is just to bright for anyone to dispute. I love reading his posts.

You should have added............"and missing the point".

[Guest]

You should have added............"and missing the point".

Who knows for sure. What I do know is he always writes in a way that makes sense to me. When I read your posts, I see opinions based on beliefs and not always facts. But I am only one opinion.

[Guest]

Richie: No, I am NOT missing your point. I understand it all too well because your opinion seems to be *exactly* the same as myt wife's - virtually TO THE WORD.

When a Church operates something "outside it's walls", there are rules they have to follow.

A Church-operated hospital could not:

- deny admittance to minorites.
- violate EEOC laws
- refuse to pay Social Security taxes on employee wages (yet they CAN do that INSIDE the Church)
- refuse to pay unemployment insurance premiums.
- violate labor laws concerning employee shifts.
- give alcohol to minors (which the Church CAN do as part of the Mass Ritual INSIDE the Church)

Now, like it or not, for the moment, the Obamacare law is the law of the land. Until that law is repealed or otherwise struck down, the law includes coverage for birth control.

I will express my appreciation, however, for not having repeated the ridiculous canard that some conservatives are spouting about making the government pay for birth control and/or sex. The Fluke case was about Georgetown University putting it in their health insurance. The odd thing is that, when my daughter went to Arcadia University, *I* had to pay the health insurance premiums - we were offered inclusion in a plan for group coverage obtained by the University. The University didn't pay it, *WE* did. I'm forced to assume from the tenor of the outrage that there's something different going on in the case of Georgetown.

[Guest]

Richie: No, I am NOT missing your point. I understand it all too well because your opinion seems to be *exactly* the same as myt wife's - virtually TO THE WORD.

When a Church operates something "outside it's walls", there are rules they have to follow.

I actually meant The Villager's II's post should have continued with the words I wrote and not you.

But saying that, I guess I now have confirmation to what I suspected. The Church is not entitled to it's religious convictions once it sets foot outside the walls of the cathedral, in your opinion.

This is a frighteningly un-American viewpoint, in my opinion. The Church has now been pushed in the "world of DJ" to only have it's First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Religion within the walls of their places of worship, and when and if they emerge and mingle with the populace are under the thumb of the State. I have to say OMG!!

[Guest]

I actually meant The Villager's II's post should have continued with the words I wrote and not you.

But saying that, I guess I now have confirmation to what I suspected. The Church is not entitled to it's religious convictions once it sets foot outside the walls of the cathedral, in your opinion.

This is a frighteningly un-American viewpoint, in my opinion. The Church has now been pushed in the "world of DJ" to only have it's First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Religion within the walls of their places of worship, and when and if they emerge and mingle with the populace are under the thumb of the State. I have to say OMG!!

And once the State has their thumb on them outside the walls of the church building, it is only a matter of time before the State demands to be in charge within the walls of the cathedral and the hearts of the people.

[Guest]

Richie: My position is not as severe as you make it out to be.

I used one example in particular - serving alcohol to minors - to point out how some "religious convictions" are not 'ok' outside the church walls.

The clause in the Constitution says 'nor prohibit the free exercise thereof'.

Let me ask you - if a Muslim-operated Church were enforcing *it's* "morality" outside the walls of the mosque, would you be as ardent a defender?

I'll tell you this - if, for example, the government tried to force the Catholic Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, *THAT* is something I would protest against.

I guess, as we've gone 'round and 'round, the basic difference is what you and I consider to be the free exercise of religion.

[Guest]

Will it go round in a circle....will fly high like a bird up in the sky....:grumpy:

[Guest]

this conservative amendment rights garbage is just that garbage. Too much government in our lives until the republican governor of Virginia passes a law telling women what they can and cannot do but god forbid we tell the almighty catholic church that they should cover birth control. Total hypocricy. I'm sick of the charade.

[Guest]

Richie: My position is not as severe as you make it out to be.

I used one example in particular - serving alcohol to minors - to point out how some "religious convictions" are not 'ok' outside the church walls.

The clause in the Constitution says 'nor prohibit the free exercise thereof'.

Let me ask you - if a Muslim-operated Church were enforcing *it's* "morality" outside the walls of the mosque, would you be as ardent a defender?

I'll tell you this - if, for example, the government tried to force the Catholic Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, *THAT* is something I would protest against.

I guess, as we've gone 'round and 'round, the basic difference is what you and I consider to be the free exercise of religion.

You need to be more specific about Muslims. If their practice does no harm to another person, I would say they have a right to their belief under our Constitution.

It doesn't hold water with this argument. The Church in not participating in a practice they consider repugnant is not harming anyone. They're simply not paying for something or providing it. Any person is free to acquire the item in question at any time, in any place, without Church interference.

You're wrong here DJ. There's no way around this simple First Amendment protection.

[Guest]

It's like I said - the First Ammendment is colliding with the Fourteenth.

It can boil down to is "operating a hospital" considered the "free exercise" of religion?

If it is, then Richie, yes, I'd say the argument is more in your favor. I would also imagine that it would be up to the Supreme Court to make a 'final' decision on that if someone were to challenge it. (Not that any decision could necessarily be truly 'final')

My opinion is that it's not an integral part of a religion. An *extension* of it, yes. And the reason I have that opinion is that so many other laws DO apply to a Church-run hospital (or other charity).

[Guest]

It's like I said - the First Ammendment is colliding with the Fourteenth.

It can boil down to is "operating a hospital" considered the "free exercise" of religion?

If it is, then Richie, yes, I'd say the argument is more in your favor. I would also imagine that it would be up to the Supreme Court to make a 'final' decision on that if someone were to challenge it. (Not that any decision could necessarily be truly 'final')

My opinion is that it's not an integral part of a religion. An *extension* of it, yes. And the reason I have that opinion is that so many other laws DO apply to a Church-run hospital (or other charity).

There's no way to make an argument that the 14th Amendment, even if it were applicable in this argument, would override your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

The Church has the right to operate a hospital and to keep their faith in the operating of said hospital. It's not mandatory to go to, or work at this hospital. Your "wants" do not override the church's rights.

[Guest]

By the same token, it is not mandatory that the Church operate a hospital.

Like I said - this is where I see the disconnect. The Church cannot do certain things (the most flagrant example I can find is serving alcohol to minors) outside the walls. Likewise, the Church could not keep women from positions of authority in a hospital the way they do inside the Church (no female priests, Bishops, etc). They *have* to follow the laws.

When the Church wanted to expand St. Joseph's in Nashua NH, they have to apply for permits, follow labor laws, building codes, etc. They did that with no problem.

They had a WANT to expand the hospital - not a RIGHT.

Why does the Church's hospital have to follow every law I can think of except this one on the insurance mandate? They ARE violating their moral code when women are in positions of authority - because that's not the way the Church runs their internal business.

[Guest]

By the same token, it is not mandatory that the Church operate a hospital.

Like I said - this is where I see the disconnect. The Church cannot do certain things (the most flagrant example I can find is serving alcohol to minors) outside the walls. Likewise, the Church could not keep women from positions of authority in a hospital the way they do inside the Church (no female priests, Bishops, etc). They *have* to follow the laws.

When the Church wanted to expand St. Joseph's in Nashua NH, they have to apply for permits, follow labor laws, building codes, etc. They did that with no problem.

They had a WANT to expand the hospital - not a RIGHT.

Why does the Church's hospital have to follow every law I can think of except this one on the insurance mandate? They ARE violating their moral code when women are in positions of authority - because that's not the way the Church runs their internal business.

BECAUSE; nothing in your example harmed anyone or deprived them of an inherent right. Depriving someone of an inherent right is what you're trying to do.

[Guest]

Denying women positions of authority DOES seem to be something the Church claims as an 'inherent right' since *every* *single* *one* of their positions of authority is held by a man. They just don't push it in the 'outside world' because they know they couldn't get away with it. Women HAVE pushed back inside the Church and the Church CAN get away with it there. Our government has never forced the Catholic Church to allow a woman to be an ordained priest.

Honest question here - and feel free to tell me it's none of my business - but were you or are you Catholic?

[Guest]

Denying women positions of authority DOES seem to be something the Church claims as an 'inherent right' since *every* *single* *one* of their positions of authority is held by a man. They just don't push it in the 'outside world' because they know they couldn't get away with it. Women HAVE pushed back inside the Church and the Church CAN get away with it there. Our government has never forced the Catholic Church to allow a woman to be an ordained priest.

Honest question here - and feel free to tell me it's none of my business - but were you or are you Catholic?

Yes, I'm Catholic. The State does not have the right to tell the church who can or cannot be a priest. It's a religious decision. It may be antiquated, but it's still within the purview of the Church.

I really think I finally used the correct word in my previous post as to the nature of these religious rights. The word is "inherent". The right to freedom of religion is an inherent right. The scenarios you contributed to support your belief that the church has to bow to the State in matters of employment and insurance cannot be implemented if they violate the Church's inherent rights.

[Guest]

Do you at least see where I see the difference?

To me, the Church has the right to say that a woman can't be a priest. But they do NOT have the right to say a woman can't be head of pediatric medicine at a hospital.

The Church has chosen (wisely, IMO) not to try and enforce THOSE tenets of their faith. They don't try to give alcohol to minors. They don't demand that all their patients be Catholic or that Catholics receive better care in their hospitals (whereas in the Mass Ritual, non-Catholics can attend but only Catholics in Good Standing may receive the eucharist).

The Church maintains that they don't have to employ women as priests and there's really nothing the government can do about it, despite protests from certain citizen groups.

Operating a hospital is a different matter. I seem to notice that there's no such 'push' for contraceptive coverage for Church employees *inside* the church (like a secretary in a rectory or something like that).

Inside the Church, they have the inherent right to discriminate. Outside, they don't. That's where the argument is going to eventually land.

I went looking for some other cases that might show an example of my inside/outside argument. I found something I didn't expect - here's an article from last December - long before the latest round of arguments started up:

Catholic Groups Fight Contraceptive Rule, But Many Already Offer Coverage : Shots - Health Blog : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage)

Some surprising quotes from the article:

- Catholic Healthcare West offered contraceptive coverage before it was legally required.
- Georgetown University (of Ms. Fluke fame) offers contraceptive coverage to it's EMPLOYEES but not it's students!



Sarah Lipton-Lubet of the American Civil Liberties Union:

"Institutions like hospitals and universities ... you're required to include contraception coverage in your insurance plan where you include coverage for other prescription drugs, as a matter of basic gender equality," she says.

That's the result of a ruling in 2000 by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It found that employers whose health plans offer prescription drugs and other preventive services but not contraceptives violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 1978 civil rights law that amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And what does contraception have to do with pregnancy discrimination? "Prescription contraception is a form of health care that is unique to women, and the consequences of the inability to be able to access contraception, those fall primarily on women," Lipton-Lubet says.

The EEOC ruling isn't technically binding unless people who are being discriminated against take action. That happened recently when some faculty members at a small Catholic college in North Carolina filed a complaint. The EEOC ruled in their favor.

[Guest]

I still don't know why you bring up these straw dogs in trying to equate a Priest with a hospital employee. It makes no kind of sense to me. It's just baffling.

The Church will shut dump insurance plans before any more compliance. Under the new socialist ObamaCare Plan they would face huge fines which would shut them down, and they will.

The same way Catholic Charities shut down their adoption services after the State mandated they place children with gay parents. Who lost out here? Only the parentless children.

When the Universities and Hospitals close down, who will be hurt? You tell me.

That is why Obama is desperately trying to find a way out of this mess before he goes down with the ship.

Syracuse Diocese bishop takes up Catholic Church's fight with White House over health insurance | syracuse.com (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/bishop_takes_up_catholics_chur.html)

White House May Be Ready To Compromise On Contraceptive Coverage Regulations (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/white-house-may-be-ready-to-compromise-on-contraceptive-coverage-regulations/)

Fact-Checking the White House: False Claims About the HHS Mandate | Becket Fund (http://www.becketfund.org/fact-checking-the-white-house-false-claims-about-the-hhs-mandate/)

Birth Control Trumps Religious Freedom in Obama (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/07/birth-control-trumps-religious-freedom-in-obama-s-catholic-decision.html)

[Guest]

Richie - I'm *not* equating a priest with a hospital employee. That's my ENTIRE POINT! They are NOT the same!

But I noticed you didn't address the fact that some Catholic-run organizations ARE providing contraception coverage.

Occam's Razor tells me that the Catholic Bishop's Conference (if memory serves, they're the ones that started protesting the mandate last month) is the right hand that doesn't know what the left hand is doing. That's the simplest explanation for the seeming inconsistency.

I have to be honest that I was *shocked* to find out the bit about Georgetown - the very institution that was at the center of the latest round of publicity on the subject.

And about Catholic Charities and the adoptions? I was surprised to find out that they accepted nearly $2.9B from the U.S. Government (out of a total of $4.7B - $140M coming from diocesan churches).

There's long been a tenet that, if you accept government money, you have to abide by government rules. Catholic Charities, Inc. made their decision. Apparently, Peter Meade (Chairman of the Board of Catholic Charities, Boston) thought differently. I think it's important to note that Catholic Charities, Boston board was "dominated" by lay-people. That's when the Archbishop got involved..


On February 28, 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and Hehir met with Governor Mitt Romney to make the case for an exemption from the state's non-discrimination statute, but Romney told them he was unable to help. They considered and rejected the idea of a lawsuit. On March 10, O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston announced that the agency would terminate its adoption work effective June 30, rather than continue to place children under the guardianship of homosexuals.


Yeah. Mitt Romney. THAT Mitt Romney.

Evidently, to that point, Catholic Charities, Boston had placed 13 of 720 kids with homosexual couples.

There are similar stories from Illinois and D.C.. However, I can't find references to other states offhand. The rest of the information *IMPLIES* that adoptions are still provided.. Going to their website, it appears that's correct..

Adoption - Catholic Charities USA (http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=1720)

So Catholic Charities DO still perform or facilitate adoptions.

[Guest]

Richie - I'm *not* equating a priest with a hospital employee. That's my ENTIRE POINT! They are NOT the same!

But I noticed you didn't address the fact that some Catholic-run organizations ARE providing contraception coverage.

Well, on the first sentence, I seriously don't know what point you're trying to make if you agree that a Church's accepting of a man's vow's to his vocation, is not the same thing as their hiring an employee of a hospital administered by the Church.

To your second point: Just because on occasion I may be forced under duress to provide you something that is against all I believe; it does not change the rightness of my argument.

If you send a guy with a gun to take my property and I relent, it does not mean that I've given up my rights to my property. It does not negate my rights; my property was taken illegally; just as the State in compelling the Church to break their sacred beliefs is committing an illegal act.

[Guest]

Ok, Richie, on THAT, I can agree with you completely.

Being forced to do something because "it's the law" doesn't change your argument. And I wouldn't expect it to change the Catholic Church's argument. Honestly, nothing short of Vatican III would do that.

We *all* make those kinds of argument. There are things we pay for with our taxes that we don't like. The compromise is that we're having things paid for that we DO support that others might not.

If I left the impression that the Catholic Church should abandon their principle, I meant no such thing and I'm sorry if I got heated enough that I did so. My point was that they could be "in the right" for their conscience all they want - but in the arena of operating a public business (like a hospital) there are rules they have to follow whether they like them or not.

I may disagree with many of their principles, but the 1st Ammendment doesn't "say" they have those rights, it *reiterates* that they have them and they always did.

By the same token, there's a LOT of good done by the Church - and no, my hands didn't burst into flames when I wrote that. I like the fact that CatholicCharitiesUSA.Org highlights things like what they're doing in tornado response in the midwest. They *need* that kind of publicity to counter the idea that they're all pedophiles or conspirators (since that's most of what you'll hear on the news).

Yeah, I want the perps brought to justice. But I don't want the baby thrown out with the bath water.

Just because I left the heirarchy of the Catholic Church behind doesn't mean I left *everything* behind that I was taught.

[Guest]

Can someone explain the difference between this issue and those who are exempt from military service due to religious conscientious objection...?

[Guest]

DJ, if I were the Pope I would already be starting the process for the eventual shutting down of Church run institutions in the United States. Losing money is not easy, but easier than abandoning your faith and principles.

Then I would see what the U.S. Government's reaction would be to that. Do they just watch me continue these actions, or do they say "Uh, wait a minute Holy Father, let's talk about this, maybe we're being too hasty".

That's just me though, and it wouldn't be the first time that I chose principle over monetary concerns.

[Guest]

Maybe that is just what they want the Catholic church to do. Close up shop would accomplish two things 1- create more need for government assistance thus advancing the socialist agenda; 2- create an even more negative public opinion of the Catholic church thus advancing the need for a "more tolerant and benevolent" One World Religion, run by the state maybe...

[Guest]

The Catholic Church doesn't need help shooting itself in the foot. A bunch of detached old men who don't realize what the world is like have already done that far better than any government COULD do.

The Church needs two things in my admittedly arrogant-sounding opinion...

1) Positive publicity. Highlight the good deeds. Don't get all wrapped up in arguments that make you look out of touch, inflexible and clueless to what your own parishoners are doing in 95%-5% numbers.

2) When the defecation hits the rotary oscillator - POLICE YOURSELF. Don't hide. Cooperate with authorites - if members of the heirarchy are committing criminal acts then they should be *prosecuted*. I fail to see why it's so difficult to say "This person was obviously not working towards God's grace and we shall not shield him from due process".

Americans have show time and time again that we are a forgiving people. Admit your mistake, improve yourself and get on with things.