Originally Posted by The Villager II

My point exactly. Trust me on this one.

Never in a million years.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

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.

I shouldn't have to give up my "civil rights" in order to work in such a public enterprise.

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?

Originally Posted by ladydoc

"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.

Ummm...who are you talking to?

Originally Posted by ceejay

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?

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

N.H. Catholic Charities would be forced to provide coverage for sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and contraception or choose to not provide health care coverage to employees, or tragically stop serving non-Catholics who make up a high percentage of the needy we serve.

A few days later, the paper found the following:

New Hampshire has a state insurance mandate for contraceptives similar to the federal one that has generated so much controversy over the past few weeks.

And that's why some Catholic institutions here, including New Hampshire Catholic Charities and Saint Anselm College, currently provide such coverage for their employees.

RSA 415:18-i mandates that any company that provides group health insurance must cover all prescription contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The mandate has been in effect here since Jan. 1, 2000, after the Legislature passed it with bipartisan support the previous year.

Unlike the federal mandate, there is no so-called “conscience exemption” under the New Hampshire law to allow churches not to provide coverage that goes against their religious beliefs

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.

Originally Posted by ceejay

Ummm...who are you talking to?

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?

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

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

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

"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.

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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

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:

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.

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:

When France proposed a resolution seeking all nations to decriminalise homosexuality, the Vatican immediately said it would oppose the resolution. This is despite the fact that up to 70 nations still have legal punishments for gay people including, in some instances, the death penalty. In a number of Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual acts are still a capital offence.

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

Originally Posted by djplong

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...

Originally Posted by djplong

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?

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.