First off there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says to keep religion out of government. There is, it so happens, a passage that says, "The government will not establish a religion." Learn the difference. For those of you that are to lazy to look it up, that means our good Uncle Sam will not be able to tell you how to pray or to whom to pray to, but then on the other hand they. the government, can and does have prayer breaksfasts, a pray before the start of congress, etc. None of the government officials have to attend any of these events if they don't want to, the same as "WE" don't have to attend any religious event that "WE" don't want to.

Therefore, you may all worship any way you want to as long as it don't interfer with my right to worship any way I want. Remember, your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ends at the tip of my nose.

VILLAGER2 appears to have a feeling that he/she is above the rest of us, yet you very seldom read a well thought out, researched response from him/her...only pontifications and name calling.

In my book, that does not elevate you to ABOVE the rest but well, well below

I read it twice, but still have no idea what you mean. I am just a simple man with simple needs. Please do not think I feel anything other than that.

1) Katz, you said it was a scenario for me.. I'll get to that.

2) You then said you were that woman. So should I make the assumption that you want to know what I would have done in your position? Or are you simply expressing your experiences since you DID undergo those circumstances?

If you're asking me, I can *honestly* say that I don't quite know what *I* would do. I'd have some long hard thinking to do. The only part I'm deliberately ignoring is where you say about this being at a point in time where unwed pregnancies weren't as accepted. It's hard enough to respond to the here and now without adding time travel to the mix.

You said you went through this. You also said it was always worth it.

For you, I have no doubt that this is true.

Take a look at any abused kid who's mother wishes they'd never been born and you understand there are no absolutes like that.

I could have been aborted. My birth mother got pregnant without knowing it, dumped her fiancee when she discovered he was married to someone else and then enlisted in the Marines. Mind you, this was 1962! Towards the end of basic training, they discovered her pregnancy and she was given a medical discharge. She told me that, from the instant they'd told her, she knew she was going to give me up for adoption.

The only reason I'm telling you all this is to let you know where my history is on this - and the fact that I have very personal experiences in this area.

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. I can't stand abortion. Never liked it and never will. There are times it's a necessary evil. There are also times that it's abused out of 'convenience' - no argument there.

But until we prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortion is going to be in the public debate.

...and as a side note, we have Santorum who's not just against public funding of contraception but against contraception PERIOD!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Abortion is the symptom, not the disease.

Wrong.

The passage is "Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion".

IT DOES *NOT* SAY "ESTABLISHMENT OF *A* RELIGION"!!!!!!

The word "establishment" is a NOUN in that sentence!

A church or school is an establishment of religion - in the way, as I like to use as an example - that a pub is an establishment of alcohol.

There is a HUGE difference there.

I only posted my experience, as you seem to think that since you had an "experience", you can be the authority to claim that it is OK for someone to make the decision to end another's life based on their circumstances....and as I have said before- life begins at conception and no one has the right to take an innocent life for any reason.

The War on Christians
 

Going back to the initial subject of this thread, Islamic hatred, I recommend getting this week's Newsweek and reading the cover article - The War on Christians. The facts are straightforward. Christians and other religious minorities are being killed by the tens of thousands in EVERY Muslim majority country. Churches are bombed, women raped and mutilated, beheadings - always popular among Muslims are commonplace.

Islam is not and never has been a religion of peace. Muslims talk constantly about the Crusaders, but never mention that the first crusade was caused by Muslims killing 3,000 unarmed Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land. They do not refer to the many Muslim crusades seeking to enslave Europe nor do they talk of the Muslim slave trade running from southern Europe to the Islamic nations. Slavery is another thing still popular in Islamic countries.

Islam is the declared enemy of Israel and the United States. Islam has always spoken of tolerance when it exists as a minority. Tolerance ceases to exist when it achieves a majority.

:bigbow:

I don't get your analogy at all. A school is an establishment of religion? What are you talking about? I don't see your point at all; I'm serious.

The state shall make no law respecting (meaning the next phrase) an establishment of religion. A direct reference and rejection of what they left, meaning a government religion like the Church of England.

Maybe the complete phrase might clear this up.

(The following is from Wikipedia, if that is acceptable. If not I will look further)

"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."

Richie...

How about when someone says a phrase like "I shall no longer patronize this establishment". Establishment is a NOUN, not a verb. That's what it is in the Constitution - but people keep thinking "establishment of religion" is worded "establishment of A religion". It's an easy mistake to make because the word 'establishment' isn't really used that way very much these days.

One of the local churches here has several "establishments" - the church itself, a hospital, a soup kitchen and I think they still have a school.

I hereby declare djplong the correct poster in reference to this debate. Sorry Richie, but you missed only by a little bit on this one. Good luck on future posts.

I don't get it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

My point exactly. Trust me on this one.

This is my point.

People have interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Founders intended for there to be no state religion. And that part is true, but it's not the WHOLE truth.

People have read that clause with the "additional 'a'" in it for a long time - but it simply does not exist.

Every time something like "prayer in school" comes up, those who want it claim that the only thing the Founders prohibited was an arrangement like the Anglican Church in England where *that* was the "official" religion.

The fact of the matter is that the Founders believed that religion was a private matter and not something that government should be involved in - and quite frankly, based on the evidence from thousands of years before and hundreds of years after them, they were correct.

I don't get it. This quote above is directed at me, and when I post that this poster's opinion of DJ's and my discussion is hardly worth the time it took him to write it and that I don't accept his unsubstantiated critique, the Moderator deemed it aimed at him and deletes it. (at little paraphrasing as I don't remember my exact quote)

Was not the above quote aimed at me? Where's the fairness?

Never in a million years.

Who's arguing that point with you? I certainly wasn't. The State cannot establish a religion or make any law regarding establishment of religion. That's all well and good, and I'm guessing we agree on those points.

The State also cannot enforce it's will in any form upon a religion. Are you arguing they can, or that they cannot. I'm not getting your point on this.

I don't know what fish you're trying to fry here.

Well, we're narrowing it down, anyway :)

Ok.

The state cannot enforce it's will on *a religion* - again, I agree with you here.

*However* - if a religion is participating in public commerce, well, there are rules that have to be obeyed. A soup kitchen, for example, could not bar blacks or jews from entering.

So, now keep in mind that there already IS an exemption in the Obamacare law for 335,000 (if my numbers were quoted correctly) churches, missions and other places of worship - they don't have to provide insurance plans with contraceptive coverage. That part keeps the government from saying that a priest has to be covered for contraception.

But if I'm working in a hospital (I used to), I shouldn't have to give up my "civil rights" in order to work in such a public enterprise. In fact, I worked at a hospital run by a religiously-affiliated organization (Boston's Beth Israel Hospital). I didn't have to keep kashrut, observe the sabbath or get a circumcision.

So, if Obamacare is the law of the land (please remember, I have other issues with the law), it should apply equally to everyone. If the hospital I worked at was St. Joseph's in Nashua, I should be covered by the law and *not* have the Catholic Church's doctrine enforced upon me. (It would be different if I, for some unknown reason, were actually working FOR the Church - like if they hypothetically wanted me to write websites for them)

On the flip side of this, it is the stated doctrine of the Catholic Church to oppose "pulling the plug". If I'd developed some horrible disease, my wife knows what my wishes are and when to consider ceasing life-support measures. It's easy to see a situation where, if I worked for a Catholic hospital or school, my insurance could be BARRED from allowing my wife to let me die with dignity.

*That*, as you put it, is the fish I'm trying to fry. "Equal Protection Under The Law". The Catholic Church cannot bar minorities from their establishment - there are a whole slew of laws they have to abide by when they open public establishments. This is no different.

"Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!!'

It must be so wonderful to assume that you speak for ALL women. You don't, not by a long shot. So once again..if you don't believe in abortions, don't have one. But you have no right to force your beliefs on others. I have always said it is the woman's choice. Not yours, not mine.

Ok...so am I reading you post and statement wrong?

A Church or religious school is "an establishment" of religion. But it starts out by saying "Congress shall pass NO Law respecting...

So, you said "establishment" is a noun...which would mean a Church or a hospital or a school..correct?

So, if they can "pass NO law respecting an establishment of religion" how can Mr. Obama make a law (mandate) that they provide birth control?

I realize that he has since "changed his mind", but I guess I'm confused by your post as well, djplong.

If you "choose" to work for a Catholic (or whatever) enterprise...it's always been a given that they will not cover contraceptives or abortions. That's been the standard for as long as I can remember. What gives Mr. Obama the right to change it?

Ummm...who are you talking to?

Here's how it works in this particular case.

Understand that there already is an exception for *churches* - all churches. All churches are treated equally.

Mass. General Hospital in Boston, for example, will have to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Catholic Medical Center in Manchester NH will now also have to do so (if they don't already). If they are allowed to have an exception, then the law IS "respecting an establishment of religion" in that it's a law on businesses that is allowing an exception if that business is affiliated with a church. That violates Equal Protection Under The Law.

Now, here's the real kicker.

NH Catholic Charities spokesperson Nick Boudreau was quoted in an article on January 29th:

Officials decry rule making health plans cover contraception | New Hampshire NEWS06

A few days later, the paper found the following:

So it just gets more confusing as to who's paying - like one of the articles says, it's more like a shell game as far as where the money comes from and goes to...

I just think that it's interesting that the week after a good jobs report comes out (lower unemployment, fewer UI claims, etc), suddenly the campaign screaming shifted to THIS issue.

opps....sorry. this is in response to one of katz's posts

Thanks for the explanation, djplong. I am going to have to read it in the morning when my head is clear...that is just too much to take in.

Is New Hampshire the only state that has this insurance madate to date?

Your premise is flawed. You're misinformed on the church's teachings on "extraordinary measures". The church does not believe people must live in pain and have no objection to a person dying "naturally".

Maybe you just picked that analogy point and you have another which might be better, but your point above is wrong.

The Catholic Church, the Muslim faith, or any other faith, cannot, BY LAW, be forced to do something which in an anathema to their faith. Are you really just trying to dispute that?

WTCT: Catholic perspective on medical treatment, palliative care, euthanasia

The law reads that the institution does not have to provide the "medication" if it just eliminates any prescription coverage from it's plan. That's the Church's solution right there. No prescription plan coverage; no problem.

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot that it is YOU who can speak for ALL women AND ALL the unborn babies, that are better off dead than living in poverty or abusive homes, etc.

Father Benson, who was quoted in the link you provided, seems to be SOMEWHAT at odds with the official Vatican position that I found here:

Respect for the dignity of the dying

I started having problems with Section 4. Although they DO speak of allowing for pain medication to ease the suffering of terminal patients, there are also lines such as the following:

The arrogance is sickening. A DNR or a living will is a cry for attention??? Now, a 'regular' suicide attempt is very often exactly what they say - but the cases of people suffering from disease or other terminal/chronic malady? Sorry. They're wrong here. I've related the case of my grandmother before - and I think I've also spoken about my adoptive mother's suicide. I was the only one she told when she made her plans specifically because she did NOT want an army of rescuers telling her what was best for her (since an army of doctors already told her she wouldn't get better).

Yes, they say it's ok to "die naturally", but their definition of "naturally" and mine have some differences.

You're certainly right in that a CHURCH cannot be forced to do something that is anathema to their faith. To use another contemporary example, a church cannot be forced to perform a gay marriage. By the same token, they shouldn't be forcing THEIR beliefs on others when engaged in more public activities. Here's something I found when checking on Vatican bigotry:

So, in your mind, should a Catholic hospital be allowed to ban gays from employment?

"A request for death on the part of those in grave suffering - as surveys of patients and testimonies of clinicians close to situations of the dying show - is almost always the last expression of the patient's hearfelt request for greater attention and human closeness as well as suitable treatment, two elements which are sometimes lacking in today's hospitals."
Whose arrogance is sickening?!?! How does one conclude from this quote that a DNR is a "cry for attention"?!? "Heartfelt request for greater attention and human closeness" is what it says. Have you no intelligence on matters of the heart? of love? of need for the closeness of loved ones as a soul slips away into an unknown place called death? People need people, it is as plain and simple as that. Yet you twist and turn the statement of facts into some perverse interpretation? Have you sat by the side of a loved one as they suffered and died? as they questioned their faith or lack of? once again, you miss the point.
WOW, you sir never cease to amaze me...:ohdear:

Of course the Catholic Church can't be compelled to perform a gay marriage. That's just ludicrous.

You just pick out the Catholic Church when your discussing employing gays. How about Muslims who would sentence them to death in any other country that ours.

I don't know the Catholic Church's policy of discovering one of their employee's are gay. Do you? Link an explanation of this occurrence if one is available. I think that the Church would try to council this person.

Richie:

How did I conclude that? Well the quote:

...specifically says a request for greater attention and closesness as well as treatment. A DNR is specifically to REFUSE treatment - to say "enough is enough"!

I pick out the Catholic Church because they're the ones arguing against the contraception coverage clause. We all know that Muslims do far worse in other countries (as my other quote referenced).

But just because someone else is worse doesn't mean ignoring what's still wrong. My adoptive mother stole money from me and, when I complained, her "defense" was that my friend's mother was worse. It's debating fallacy called 'deflection', if memory serves.

My "what ifs" were cut short as this one would be.. But I'll phrase them differently.

Just how many civil rights or laws should be "exempted" when a religious-affiliated group is running a hospital or non-religious school?

Should they be hypothetically allowed to ban gays? ...minorities? ...women? (There's a classic case - women cannot become priests, and that's ok with the Government under "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof", but you can't discriminate against them beaing teachers or nurses in hospitals)

The Catholic Church believes those to have had abortions to have committed murder. Should they be allowed to hypothetically refuse treatment to someone who's had an abortion - or the husband of a woman who has (as perhaps he was an accomplice).

My point in all of this is "where do you draw the line?" - and that's usually the most difficult question.

The Muslims make their own laws. Lets not go down that road in America. Separation of church and state 100%

I'm thinking you've got too many "what if's" and that you're losing whatever point it is you're trying to make.

I really don't think you're making your case here and all of it is flawed.

No hospital is going to turn away a patient who is suffering or in a life threatening situation. I don't know where you get that idea.

The upshot of all this is that it does appear to me that you're flailing about in all of your musings in an attempt to convince people that the church's teachings and beliefs have to be subordinate to laws that are indeed adverse to those beliefs.

You cannot make that case.

Perhaps I can sum it up this way.

How the Church acts in *private* (the free exercise of their religion) is one thing.

How they act in *public* (operating schools, hospitals, etc), is subject to *public* laws.

There are some grey areas in there, I'll be the first one to admit that (hence the reason I was doing the "what ifs" to see where to draw the line)

To take a simple example..

A Church doesn't have to marry homosexuals if it's against their teaching.

A Church-sponsored hospital CANNOT deny service to a homosexual (not saying they WOULD, I'm just saying they CAN'T)

It must be hard being Catholic. Knowing what the church hierarchy wants in terms of human behavior and also knowing that's it's near impossible to meet the expectations; not that the vast majority even want to try. It's an archaic, mostly irrelevent religion.
It's much easier being agnostic. :icon_wink:

The Church does not operate public schools. So what you say does not apply. You have to choose to go to parochial school. You certainly don't have to.

The same goes with hospitals. No emergency patient is going to be turned away from a Catholic hospital, and they will fight for that person's life, there's no doubt about it. Elective procedures? That's where you don't have to go to that hospital. There are others to perform procedures that a Catholic Hospital might not administer.

So this was all an exercise with no real cause for alarm on your part, it seems. I'm still not sure what the point of all of this was.

Richie, sweaty, please stop. You are out of your league trying so debate with Long.

You are a foolish boy who doesn't know what he's talking about, so why don't you just shut the heck up. It's embarrassing.

[QUOTE=The Villager II;453244]Richie, sweaty, please stop. You are out of your league trying so debate with Long.[/QUOT.E]


You have no clue as to what your are talking about...NONE.

DJPLONG, an intelligent guy, goes out of his way almost daily to find some fault with the Catholic church, and even he will admit he has a difficult time being neutral discussing the Church, whether he is right or wrong, he has a slant.

What began the discussion is pretty straight forward....the President and administration erred very seriously with the health care bill (albeit on purpose) and he is simply trying to fix it politically. READ the health care bill...it will scare the @#$%% out of you if you fear government involvement.

RICHIELION does not need me to speak up, but will tell you, he is not in any danger here at all.

Much appreciated Bucco.