PORTLAND, Maine — The leader of Maine’s Roman Catholics is adding his voice to a chorus of condemnation by religious leaders of President Barack Obama’s decision to require church-affiliated institutions to cover free birth control for employees.
Bishop Richard Malone said Monday that churches and parishes would be exempt, but other institutions such as Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals and schools would be required to meet the mandate.
Malone says that the church opposes contraception and “particularly the morning-after pill” that induces abortion. He says the mandate would require Catholic institutions to make an “impossible” choice of either violating their moral code or denying health care coverage.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals will have one additional year to comply.
This is an attack on religion by Obama. Ordering church institutions to give away a product to their employees an item they do not believe in is not something our President should be doing. Obama is showing his true colors.
do you think each employer should be able to opt of of certain portions of healthcare coverage?
if you allow the Catholic church to opt out, then what’s stopping your employer from opting out of other portions? Say, like cancer treatment?
As an employer myself, I could easily say ‘I don’t believe in radiation’ ergo, I choose not to pay for that portion of healthcare coverage.
Why should free birth control be the responsibility of an employer? Especially in religious matters which Obama is tweaking. Employers want a job done not to get in people’s personal lives.
Since I am a woman, I am happy to answer that.
Because access to birth control is a part of women’s healthcare.
Does insurance cover condoms?
i don’t know, but it often covers viagra.
Not to mention pretty much every other type of birth control… IUDs, Tubal Ligation, the sponge, cervical caps, diaphram, NuvaRing, Implanon, birth control patch, and whatever else…
Even Religious institutions can”t possibly be so naive today that they don’t know that the vast majority of their congregations are using some form of birth control and that it probably isn’t abstinence – particularly for married couples.
So, it would seem that their only objection is having birth control included in covered services provided by healthcare insurance… I mean obviously they don’t actually have a problem with birth control since they have to know that everyone in the pews is not practicing abstinence (including married couples). What they’re really saying is they want people to pay for it out of pocket instead of having it be a covered item under healthcare insurance, right?
THINK about this religious “objection” people – it isn’t about choosing whether or not people use birth control – it’s only about who pays for it. So, either it’s covered under healthcare insurance or the “sinner” pays – either way birth control methods will continue to exist.
This “objection” is just ridiculous and a means for religious institutions to put a negative twist on birth control. Let’s see a show of hands… who wants to rid the earth of birth control? Who wants to spare the healthcare insurance industry the expense and make birth control an out of pocket expense for over the counter birth control pills (that your 14 year old daughter can buy) or do-it-yourself IUD’s, tubal ligation, etc… This is the dumbest idea ever!!!!
Still not in a job discription if you are to work at a christian institution. I do not accept your trying to undermine religious beliefs in the name of socialism.
Your talking yourself into knots on this one. So if I work at a Ford dealership, can my employer forbid me from driving a Toyota to work?
And it’s not Free Birth Control, it’s requiring the insurance company to cover the birth control. Funny the C church has no problem covering Viagra,
I do not accept you trying to undermine access to health care in the name of (your) religion.
“I do not accept you trying to undermine access to health care in the name of (your) religion.”
RIGHT ON ….point !
… and I further resent that speaking up about it politically being called being anti-religious … and then said to be be hindering the rights of religious people from speaking up politically,
so WE are being are accused of bigotry of some sort.
But knowing that the dogmatic, authoritarian, paternalistic believers and other similar (politically motivated ) hypocrites are not used to being confronted so directly, nor looking at their own faults before projecting them onto other then judging these others on that which they alone have projected upon their political opposition , in the name of
Christ’s message of love and tolerance, I forgive them for doing it, because they know no better.
PTL
im beginning to think that the two most dangerous words to American society are “I believe”.
translation: I don’t have any facts, no historical perspective, little if no knowledge of other cultures and I can barely articulate myself.
There is no way to counter blind faith, but a belief is not the truth either. .
did you look under your bed for commies this morning– all the ones that bleat about socialism have no understanding of what it means
look up plutocracy , laddie
Why should health insurance companies be made to cover expenses that are purely optional? For one, contraception isn’t expensive, but it is little things like this that end up making health insurance so expensive. Obama’s move is about control. Women should be very weary of this. And where is the separation of church and state (which is meant to protect churches more than the state btw)?
“Women should be very weary of this”
…oh c’mon Johnny, this is about women’s “healthcare” and the fact that Obama and all his big government buddies want to provide soooooooo much freedom and choice in their plans for a state-run healthcare program. Why can’t you just get on board with this johnny, it feels soooooo good!
I must be a misogynistic moralist, or something even worse; a freethinker ;)
You’re absolutely right. Speaking of optional, let’s talk about viagra …. what’s so necessary about that? As a matter of fact, an argument could be made that by providing coverage for viagra they’re increasing costs their down the road because the end result could be a pregnancy where as coverage for birth control will reduce costs by avoiding a pregnancy.
Good point, so if Viagra is covered why not contraceptives?
OMG, what could be more against the will of God than a pill that counters male impotency ?
Think about it for a minute.
Cancer treatment is purely optional. If I opt not to take chemo or radiation, that is my business. Yet I still pay for the availability of that treatment.
The cost of raising a child is estimated to be $226,000. that’s cheap to you?
Birth Control is not optional, if you are married, working and already raising children.
What is really going on here, is that am employer wants to cherry pick which components of healthcare it will pay for.
What if your employer believes in faith healing and doesn’t want to pay for chemo therapy? What’s the difference?
I don’t get your second sentence.
you are making an assumption that birth control is only for single promiscuous women. birth control is also for married women with children.
‘Barefoot and pregnant’ is the option you seem to promote for American women? why?
That’s not good for the economy, for families or for the planet.
STG, how can you say that I espouse that attitude with assumptions? A simple answer to my question would’ve been more appropriate. Your accusations are far from the truth.
BUT:
It could be argued that reproductive rights are a personal choice that the taxpayers shouldn’t have foot the bill for. A few minutes of unprotected physical pleasure vs. the possible consequence (especially for a busy couple) is the participant’s choice to make without expecting your neighbors to participate in the costs of your ‘fun’. But the adult concept of taking responsibility for one’s actions is just too old fashioned these days, I guess.
you can make the argument that ALL healthcare is a personal choice. there are those who believe only prayer cures, and if it doesn’t work, then its God’s will.
may i assume you are a catholic? male?
If so, you’re point of view is a product of your religion. The constitution protects me from you imposing your beliefs on me.
I don’t believe in gasoline, but I pay for your roads.
I don’t have school age children in Maine, but I pay for public schools.
I don’t believe in war, but my tax dollars support that.
Yes, if you don’t want health insurance you shouldn’t have to buy it anymore than homeowner’s insurance. People that don’t are taking one heck of a chance, but at least my house is financially protected without taxpayer’s being mandated to pay for it.
Also, a catastrophic illness is a far cry from having a few minutes of orgasmic pleasure’s possible consequences. Not even comparable.
Now, Your Assuming Nosiness, my biography:
I’m a 56 year old father of two that was brought up Pentecostal, but has been agnostic for years. Many of my friends are Irish Catholics and I love to good-naturedly tease them about their religion. I am a fiscal conservative centrist that was raised to lead a pragmatic life and to stay out of other people’s reproductive ‘rights’, and to certainly pay my own bills (especially if it’s for recreational ‘fun’). Enough info yet?
Since the Constitution (and common sense)protects you from my ‘beliefs’, shouldn’t it also protect my wallet from other’s recreation funding?
As far as your last 3 lines; that’s just a silly over-reactionary argument. How can a roll in the hay be compared to those 3?
to your last question: we were discussing the correlation between personal ideals and taxation.
Yes we were, before you went off on the tangents of gasoline and war etc. That has nothing to do with other people being told to pay for someone else’s reproductive prevention and the ‘recreation’ that it involves. We certainly never felt the need to breed what we couldn’t feed and certainly didn’t demand/expect others to pay for our ‘right to choose’ to not have any more kids.
That was, after all, the basic gist of this article and our conservation.
I don’t believe in smoking, but insurance must cover my lung cancer.
I don’t believe in a sedentary lifestyle, but insurance must cover my heart attack.
I don’t believe in eating unhealthy food, but insurance must cover my diabetes, heart attack, colon cancer, etc., etc., etc.
but if you believe in driving erratically , insurance must cover your crash, if you believe in sking, insurance must cover your crash into a tree
STG, well put.
It also comes close to what I think is the root issue here.
It comes down to if people realize and truly accept that
the protection of their freedom of religion can only work if others are free of their religion, just as they are free of all the other competing believers and their “the one true faith (s)” .
As a poll question it would be :
Do you agree that the protection of your freedom of religion is best served by all people being free to choose to have no religion ?
The bulk of a person’s healthcare is incurred during the last 6 months of life, that is where the money goes.
Which is exactly why most of what healthcare should be covering is just what you stated, not a bunch of other minutiae.
What about those who are diagnosed with/receive treatment for a catastrophic disease such as cancer ……… no coverage if they survive?
I did use the word most, not all. My argument is that health insurance should be a contract, and one should be able to sign a contract that they are happy with. Mandates upon mandates prevent this from ever becoming a reality, since one never knows how this third party called the government is going to alter the said contract. No stability means no profitability unless exhorbitant prices are charged, which is exactly what is going on. Any insurance copany looks at what the future “may” bring. Our govenment simply makes it impossible to do so reliably, so we hae this mish-mash of coverage and deficit that I, for one, can’t make much sense out of. Bless those who can.
So you would prefer insurance companies that offer coverage à la Carte ……. pick and choose what you want coverage for? I would agree with that …..
Absolutely. And while were at it let’s stop paying $7 for a Tylenol just because we got it in a hospital. If restictions and mandates were lifted, then demand would lead to the creation of better individualized plans.
Birth control is far cheaper than pregnancy, far cheaper than adding unwanted children to welfare roles, far cheaper than food stamps for children parents can’t afford. Birth control eliminates the need or desire for abortion. What good reason is there for denying birth control, or allowing drug companies to charge excessive amounts for it?
Not expensive? That depends on the method of contraception ….. many birth control pill prescriptions are $100 a month. Quarterly shots can run up to $70 plus the cost of the doctor visit. Condoms are less expensive but not as effective. No one is mandating that these employees purchase and take contraceptives. Women have been weary of relying on condoms, rhythm method etc. for a long time because they know they are less effective for preventing unplanned pregnancy.
Women need to weary of those who support limiting the choice of effective contraceptives or an outright ban on the use of contraceptives.
My argument doesn’t address preganancy or childrearing at all. I believe that our government has no business butting onto such matters involving what employer’s choose to pay for. Don’t like, don’t work there. Or maybe the Government could pay for all birth control. But then people would see what this is really about. Where are the “stay out of my bedroom” comments from the Indignants now? Double standards simply won’t allow the liberal mentality to look at any issue honestly, and this is truly sad considering the mess we are heading into as a socety. Does anyone bother to ask why healthcare is being pushed so much lately? It is just another fear tactic in the end. People get sick and die. Hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies are never going to change this fact. Sure, I’m all for a cure for cancer, but at what expense to others who may be suffering from something else? There is a new name for eugenics and social engineering, and that new name is called “healthcare.” Ain’t progress grand?
LOL…engaging in sexual intercourse and then expecting to not get pregnant is most certainly not healthcare…it’s called a pleasurable activity and then managing the results of said activity…kind of like going to a bar, drinking, and then having a designated driver to bring you home with no unanticipated consequences.
You don’t need a doctor to buy a beer or get yourself a designated driver. Just like you don’t need a doctor to get yourself laid and you can get yourself a pack of condoms at the local corner store for less than 10 bucks, without a doctor.
nice try with the ‘healthcare’ argument, but it’s a flat out joke and well over half the country would laugh you out of the room.
‘like going to a bar….’
stop it. that’s insulting and making an assumption that women are drunk and promiscuous.
Consumers of birth control include almost every married woman who already is raising a family.
… AND SO MUST ALL THE WOMAN FORCED TO WORK TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILY BECAUSE THE CORPORATE CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES HAVE NOT KEPT ITS PROMISE AND TRICKED DOWN TO ALLOW THEIR VALUES VOTER’S FAMILY VALUES …WOMAN AT HOME RAISING CHILDREN… DREAM FROM BEING A REALITY.
Conservative economic policy require contraception and/or encourage abortion.
The fact is, many Catholic institutions already offer policies that include birth control as standard. Some have had birth control benefits for 10 years and more, so why is the church bringing it up now?
This whole made up fight is part of the election process. The current leadership of the Catholic church is trying to turn the clock back to when it could intimidate people and have special rules for it. This is handy for right wingers who want to climb on that wagon. An unholy alliance, Catholic church and right wing authoritarian figures.
The church obviously wants to be controlling people’s lives. Employers constantly dictate many aspects of people’s lives.
”
Why should free birth control be the responsibility of an employer?
To prevent more expensive abortions and all the other medical expensive associated with unwanted pregnancies.
It is just good business and a very valid means of controlling both medical costs and abortions, as well.
If you do not understand that much, at least, realistically, how much respect do you expect for your opinions on this matter, and why ?
You are all over the board here.
how so?
You are not barefoot, pregnant, and in kitchen being seen but not heard… would be my guess of what the Christian ayatollah or Neo-Pharisee, means.
Which of those terms do you think best fits the paternalistic, authoritarian, regressive revisionists posting their unsubstantiated judgmental pronouncements, here,
as if they all were The Bishop.
:0
ya know, i was tempted to start the discussion about “if the goal is to eliminate poverty, then women need access to birth control” discussion, but I knew this would fly over their heads and start a ration of God-fearing diatribes, the likes of which I just could not bother with this morning.
Any anti-poverty program existing in 3rd world countries knows this.
The fact is, as long as women are pregnant or have young children, we are economically dependent upon men. That sort of takes the ‘choice’ out of having sex with your husband.
’nuff said.
“i was tempted to start the discussion about “if the goal is to eliminate poverty, then women need access to birth control” discussion, but I knew this would fly over their heads and start a ration of God-fearing diatribes, the likes of which I just could not bother with this morning. ”
Got ya.
That is why I said : “If you do not understand that much, at least, realistically, how much respect do you expect for your opinions on this matter, and why ?” … to a Neo -Pharisee just few post above.
Lets see you get a strict Muslim company to endorse abortion coverage….
They are just as free as the Catholic Church not to endorse it, but they are no more free to demand special standard or exception to employee protection and other business laws based on religious beliefs than The Catholic Church INC. does.
If doing business AS A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATE BUSINESS, which despite the denial, is the reality of it, goes against you moral beliefs, stop doing business, for the sake of YOUR OWN immoral soul .
That is your freedom in the free market system.
Your right, it is…
Did you mean “immortal” soul?
Both work equally well …
Excuse me if my Freudian slip is showing.
What are you talking about?
Barak Hussein Obama wants to tell christians what to do. Why? Because he is not one. There, I said it.
Well, my goodness gracious, it must be true!
Gee, he goes to a christian church though.
The Obamas attended Zion Baptist Church on Blagden Avenue NW Last week. I understand they knew all of the prayers and all of the hymns. Now how many “real christians” can do that anymore?
so what religion is our president?
I heard he’s a kenyan born muslim, what do you think?
i heard newt gingrinch is a serial bigamist and romney is a vulture capitalist
… and Mitt is the product of polygamy as it was practiced by religious socialists and heretics, from all mainstream Christian perspectives.
But I only mention that here, because they, too, built that church by playing the numbers games and viewing woman as breeding stock, just like the Bishop of Portland, too.
I think the matter of Obama’s birth place has been resolved many years ago, and to be still going on about it reveals a serious lack of sense..
Guess you’re not one of the Republicans who hate President Obama for having attended (for about 20 years) a Christian church whose minister they disapprove of.
so you made a stupid untrue statement– no prizes for it
The law applies to everyone, not just Christians.
Beat on the Christians, but dont mention the Muslims…
Why, what their their Bishop say ?
All a Catholic person has to do is not accept and take the product if it is against their belief. Perhaps some employees are not catholic, and believe in birth control.
You mean this policy “orders” church institutions to purchase, distribute (give away a product) and force their employees to use the product?
There is no law that says the people who work in these institutions ‘HAVE’ to take these contraceptives. If the good Bishop is doing his job and convincing his employees to forsake birth control for church dogma, the porblem is solved. They seem to be doing a wonderful job with that in Mexico.
This is about requiring health insurers for hospitals and universities with religious affiliations to cover contraceptives for their employees. Clearly those protesting do not wish their employees to choose for themselves.
You have everything backwards. Let me explain:
Employers used to be free to choose which policies they wanted for their employees. Employees who weren’t satisfied with the policy or policies offered by their employer ALWAYS HAD THE OPTION OF OBTAINING A POLICY OF THEIR CHOOSING ELSEWHERE. But now the new mandate changes all that by forcing all health insurance policy carriers to cover contraceptives, and sterilizations, to boot. In effect all policies offered by employers for their employees now have contraceptive and sterilization coverage whether or not the employee and the employer wants to pay for that coverage.
Obama, true to form, is engaging in social engineering, and is abridging American’s 1st Amendment right of freedom of conscience.
It is time for the Catholic Church to join the 21st century. These rules were instituted as a means of controlling women and making sure that there was a steady suply of labor. There was a time not too many years ago when the human population of the earth was dependent on women having babies until they died. The Church given their way would force rape victims to bear and raise the seed of their rapist. I wonder how their dogma is flying in China?
Your accusations are plainly false & offensive, and intended to excoriate. Furthermore, its formal teachings and practices do not violate human rights as you imply. No one is forced to be a Catholic or a non-Catholic Christian.
“Your accusations are plainly false & offensive”
Did the Pope said so ? If Whatwell, speaking for the Pope says “Your accusations are plainly false & offensive,” what other proof could you possibly need , Pat ?
The church has a lot of power in Ireland. I do believe that if you are impregnated by a rape, the only way you can get an abortion (if you are poor) is to leave the country to one where the procedure can be done. Law influenced by the Church.
________________________________
From: Disqus
To: patom064@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:53 AM
Subject: [bdn] Re: Maine bishop condemns Obama for requiring free birth control for Catholic institutions’ employees
Disqus generic email template
whawell wrote, in response to patom1:
Your accusations are plainly false & offensive, and intended to excoriate. Furthermore, its formal teachings and practices do not violate human rights as you imply. No one is forced to be a Catholic or a non-Catholic Christian. Link to comment
Obama, true to form, is assuring that equal access to health care is available for all Americans.
God Bless our President.
Yes that may be the case. He is doing so by trying to force people to do something against their conscience in violation of their 1st Amendment Right. God bless Obama AND everyone else who have different views. Personally I don’t besmirch the man, only some of his policies.
Obama, true to form, is assuring that equal access to health care is available for all Americans.
God Bless our President.
Whatwell says “Yes that may be the case.”
so lets ask the employees if they want it or not, have a secret vote, care to bet on what side would win?
So then , what you are saying is that employers who are required to provide health insurance to their employees should required to provide only those policies that the government dictates? Where’s the freedom to choose here? If employees are not happy with the policies being offered, why not have them retain their own policies instead? If that is too expensive for them, may they should look for a policy that only covers contraceptives and sterilization. If there is enough demand for such insurance policies, I’m sure it will be just a matter of time for private industry to fulfill his demand.
“So then , what you are saying is that employers who are required to provide health insurance to their employees should required to provide only those policies that the government dictates?”
That is the National standard, so why are you demanding OPTIONAL church businesses must have the right to deny their people, their employees, THEIR freedom of choice AND not meet the logical national health insurance standard ?
In this fight, with Whatwell and the Bishop speaking for them,
THE CHURCH IS EFFECTIVELY SUPPORTING AND ENCOURAGING ABORTIONS.
Matt. CH. 7 ”
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me,
you evildoers.”
WORD !
Thank you for quoting scripture. Since when have yo turned into a Christian believer? Bless you, brother!
“Since when have yo turned into a Christian believer ”
Are you judging me (in your usual passive-aggressive way), Pilgrim ?
But you’re very welcome.
So, what did you get out the my inspired message to you ? Yo ?
Anything ?
Or must you make the scripture just about me and how you and the Princes of the Church interprete The Laws of ” THE Church” …. just like a neo-Pharisee would ?
rotflol
Open your heart to and let the Spirit lead you.
Then go with The Spirit, and sin no more, what ?
Sir, you made a personal attack on me. As you can see I’m not a “doormat” Christian. Pick a fight with somebody else with your religious bigotry. How about a Muslim cleric for a change?
“Sir, you made a personal attack on me. As you can see I’m not a “doormat” Christian. Pick a fight with somebody else with your religious bigotry. How about a Muslim cleric for a change?”
Why ?
Do wrong headed Catholic ones automatically get a pass ?
Whatwell, what don’t you get about the Golden Rule ?
Or are you exempted from it because you are a Neo Pharisee, or something, so your insulting implications are different, somehow ?
Is it a Cannon Law thingy, may-be ?
So look , if you want respect give it.
If you can’t you should avoid trying to defend the Church when takes a political position in a public political discussion because both you and your Church will fairly be judged upon the secular fruits of your efforts … just as who said they should be… must be, to protect His message ?
“so lets ask the employees if they want it or not, have a secret vote, care to bet on what side would win?”
They have veto power already. They are not required to take any pill, are they ?
That was all before corporations were people.
Now, they, The Incorporated Church, the Catholic Church INC. business operations
must obey the law, and National standards, just like real people do.
Careful, you’re walking the line between the separation of church and state.
“Clearly those protesting do not wish their employees to choose for themselves.”
Setting standards for health insurance coverage allows the employees to choose for themselves.
Those that imply setting those standards are WRONG … not allowing ALL people to choose for themselves is wrong … is exactly what they are defending …. when the Church does it.
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
You’re right, there is no law forcing people to use contraceptives. So, as you say, people do not have to use them. But why should a person be forced to pay for these services he or she considers immoral? That is exactly what Obama’s new mandate under Obamacare proposes to do. Policy holders would be forced against their conscience to pay for contraceptives use by others. Also, are you aware Obama’s mandate would also force every health insurance policy holder to pay for sterilization as well?
Folks, this mandate is all about social engineering. It’s a direct abridgement of our freedoms under the Constitution, particularly our 1st Amendment right to freedom of conscience. If people want health insurance coverage for contraceptives and sterilizations, let them find an insurance carrier that covers these services. But don’t force others to pay for these services against their will.
So anyone who claims to be a pacifist and holds a moral standard against war should not have to pay taxes to support the military? Seems as though there could be a lot of individuals with a 50% reduction in federal taxes by utilizing that same logic.
What you seem to forget is that religious institutions are protected under the 1st Amendment. The government may not prohibit the free exercise thereof (of religion). Because the exercise of religion is free it may not impose a tax on institutions related to it. Pacifists are not protected under the Constitution in the same way religious institutions are.
I’m not forgetting anything. The church itself, as referenced in this article, is not held to this mandate. What you seem to be forgetting is your very own statement regarding the freedom of conscience – this does not apply simply to organized religion.
Let me clarify: Most churches themselves will qualify for an exemption from the mandate’s requirement. But most of their religious institutions, such as, charities, hospitals, and schools will not qualify for the exemption. Neither will most individuals who object on conscientious grounds. The mandate is essentially forcing individuals and institutions to participate in health insurance policies covering contraceptives and sterilizations if violation of their freedom of conscience.
And yet the catholic church embeds itself in every aspect of government and politics. They should lose their tax exempt status.
they’re not the only ones every religion does it, they should all lose tax exemption
In order to legally do away with religious tax exemptions, the 1st Amendment would have to be re-written to permit that.
True, it apply to all of them when they play in the political arena.
Here’s the distinction: The Church may speak out on matters of morals and ethics. It may not directly promote a candidate for political office in order to retain its tax free status.
” It may not directly promote a candidate for political office in order to retain its tax free status.”
What about endorsing the Heritage Foundation agenda,
much to detriment of the Church’s Native American, dispossessed Francophone and Irish immigrate traditional political and social justice values and roots, in Maine ?
So what is the policy of Catholic hospitals on performing D and C’s?
Only a few months ago, there was big news about a Catholic hospital that performed an emergency abortion and the attitude of the Bishop was that the mother should be left to die rather than have an abortion. The doctors did the necessary surgery, and the church threatened to withold support for the hospital. This is how much concern for people the church has.
i consider the evangelical religious reich immoral- so i dont want ANY of my tax dollars going to any of their organization,grants, etc
why should I be forced againt my conscience to pay for anything i think is immoral?
Taxation may be immoral to you. To tell you the truth the government does need some form of revenue in order to fulfill its Constitutional duty to protect its citizens. How do you propose it finds this revenue if not thought taxation?
Just one more reason to vote him out of office come November!
and one more reason I will vote for him (unless the GOP comes up with a better candidate). Thank you Pres. Obama for addressing this vital part of women’s access to health care.
LOL…”healthcare”….yawn
LOL…imposing your religion on others…yawn
“LOL…imposing your religion on others…”
Just like the Shi’ites … or is it the Sunnis…
Heck, aren’t they all the the same, anyway ?
Their arguments all begin, FIRST you must believe what we do…
First, the morning after pill does not induce abortion, so BDN you are factually incorrect on that and you should make the correction.
Second, “church-affiliated” institutions should not be exempt because anyone can claim to be affiliated with a church. The test should be whether the institution’s primary purpose is for the advancement of religion. (which would leave out hospitals and universities.)
Finally, it would be interesting to see how many of these protesting religious organizations cover Viagra without question.
Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) at a GlanceBirth control you can use to prevent pregnancy up to five days (120 hours) after unprotected sex
— morning-after pillThis is from PP’s website, so what you’re saying makes no sense if you can take the morning after pill up to five days after unprotected sex then you are inducing an abortion. The fetus is well on it’s way developing.Another thing I have a question about. If a woman has a developing baby inside her can you imagine the amount of hormones a woman must ingest to kill the developing life within her. And then all those hormones are being flushed into our water system.
‘The fetus is well on it’s way developing’
Try again, Einstein. The sperm (the swimmy thing) fertilizes the egg (can’t help you there, an egg’s an egg) but the two (now an embryo) must implant on the side of the uterus (the warm fuzzy place where an embryo becomes a viable fetus) before the pregnancy can occur. The Plan B pill prevents implantation, which is a very common occurrence naturally anyway among women who have trouble conceiving.
Zygote, embryo, fetus=baby
Skin cell = potential stem cell = baby. Outlaw dandruff shampoo!
LMFAO :o)
Contraceptives, which the Church want to eliminate, = no zygote, embryo, fetus, so NO ABORTED baby.
Not to mention that there is only a 2.5% chance per coupling that the sperm and egg have even joined. Seeing as how this is emergency contraception the chances that fertilization has occurred are exceedingly slim.
Oh, to quote the great Charles Schultz, “Good Grief!!”
Small note, this story came from the Associated Press, not the BDN
Good point. Thanks.
My job offers free babysitting, but it doesn’t make me want to have a child to take them up on it.
Your Excellency, the simple solution is to stop accepting Federal Funds.
Be THAT moral, or be quiet.
What you are proposing is that the federal government discriminate against religious institutions who for reasons of conscience may not participate in health insurance policies that cover contraceptives and sterilizations. The government may not do that. So what did the Obama Administration do? It added a so-called exemption in the new mandate necessitated by the 1st Amendment that effectively only pays lip service to the 1st Amendment right of freedom of conscience. That is why the exemption is now correctly being labeled a”fig-leaf exemption”.
That said, the Bishop is totally correct in condemning Barack Obama’s decision.
It’s hardly reasons of conscience, it’s simple math really. More catholic babies=stronger wealthier catholic religion.
I have noticed ads on TV from the Catholic church trying to get people to “come home to the Catholic church” and one about how “marriage affects others.” I never have seen them advertise before. That must mean they are losing the “meat in the seats” as the cotton-heads die off. Young people are not particularly interested in religion, especially stodgy, dogmatic, restrictive, 12th century versions who “love” everyone but hate their sins. Add in the estimated $2B they have paid out in settlements over the past decades and you can see their projected income is heading downward. All this, of late, is just the rollout of a new business plan.
Many Europeans left the continent in order to escape religious persecution. For that reason the framers of the Constitution, not Catholic bishops as you indicated, are responsible for providing individuals and religious institutions with freedom of conscience. You can’t blame the Church for that. But why are you against the Church or Christianity?
I’m not against Christianity, I do however have a problem with a religion, controlled by mortals that use their interpretation of God’s word to tell me who I can marry, and how to live my life. I think the catholic religion has become a political and financial entity more focused on those things than God’s word. If the membership doesn’t believe in birth control, they won’t use any, but why should any religion dictate our personal choices. If I don’t want to have a child for economic or personal choices, that’s my decision to make. Not some Bishop or Pope.
Exactly– more tithers is all that really matters to the church leadership.
If, as you make it sound, these religious institutions (in this case the Catholic church) really do have a problem with contraception, why do some Catholic institutions already offer insurance that includes reproductive health provisions? Do a quick search on Google and you will find the names of Catholic hospitals and universities that offer this insurance.
So now that we have established that some Catholic institutions already provide some of the same insurance that they now say will undermine their teachings, why do you suppose they are making the fuss now? Can you spell e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n?
Like somebody wrote above, the Catholic church has lost the high ground on moral teachings. Another quick search on Google will show where the Boston archbishop who knowingly allowed pedophiles to work his parishes ended up. For help in the Google search, look what happened after Cardinal Bernard Law was forced to retire in 2002. Further help: Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, is the 2nd largest church in Rome, and being named head of this church is considered quite a promotion.
Now, to assign some kind of moral authority to an institution that hid molesters for years, then promoted the very ones who allowed this to happen stretches credulity. This tells me that they are not as interested in saving souls as in saving the institution. Their conscience did not bother them then, but now that they might need to subsidize birth control pills for women, they find problems with that? Pretzel logic.
Those Catholic institutions offering the health insurance policies you indicated are in violation of the Church’s teaching. They are no better than individual Catholics who oppose some of its teachings. No, I beg to differ, the Church has not lost its high grounds on moral teachings. What you are implying is that, because it has failed to follow some its own teachings, it should not be teaching. That’s foolish. What you are saying is that a person or institution that fails to adhere to its teachings should not automatically be allowed to teach. If that were the case, then no one would be allowed to teach and promote ethics and morality.
As to your oft repeated church sex scandal, tell me why you keep bringing this topic up? Are you a militant atheist who thinks only their views may be expressed in the public square, or are you a homosexual who wants gay “marriage” to be sanctioned by the state? Last time I checked this is still a free country under the Constitution.
“Those Catholic institutions offering the health insurance policies you indicated are in violation of the Church’s teaching.”
So they need to stop being in business.
They should get the money changers out of the their temples , if the market place is immoral and so ” in violation of the Church’s teaching.”, you dolt.
Don’t blame the water because you can’t swim … or walk upon it .
I’ll say it for the last time, all the Catholic institutions are non-profits. They are not in business to make money. Rather, they exist to serve.
There are important legal differences between religious organizations and non-profit organizations. All are tax-exempt, but only religious organizations can take what is called a “ministerial exception” to certain tax and employment laws. For any other type of organization a professed bias against contraceptives would be blatantly discriminatory (against women), but churches and some religious organizations are exempt from anti-discrimination laws. The issue at hand applies to hospitals, colleges, universities and charities that claim a religious affiliation but are not by definition either churches or church organizations.
They are doing business as NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS and they are employers.
If the legal requirements of that does not fit the Church’s moral standards, the Church MUST stop doing it because of it own moral standards, or they mean less than nothing.
But the government need not change the ways it protects worker’s rights just because the Bishop wants it.
It is discrimination now to allow churches to carry on business activities and still claim tax deductions. We all have to pay higher taxes because some religious organizations do not pay their fair share.
Its tax free business activities non-profit in nature. Non-profit organizations are all exempt from taxes.
Do all these contradictory points really make sense :
“Its tax free business activities non-profit in nature.” ?
Study that, and true or not, doesn’t it make a logical head spin ?
lol
I don’t really think that most people in this day and age believe the catholic church is “non-profit”.
“What you are proposing is that the federal government discriminate against religious institutions who for reasons of conscience may not participate in health insurance policies that cover contraceptives and sterilizations. ”
No, what I’m suggesting is that if non-tax paying Churches want to compete for workers in the free market, that they meet the same standards that apply to tax paying business that they compete with and give the their workers the tools needed for the same level of economic planning about expansion that corporate persons enjoy.
What are maternity leave and job security policies of the church operated enterprises ?
Are they really in support of building the nation and church by making more babies,
or more likely do they reflect the usual religious values that seem to imply that woman
should be obedient, barefoot, pregnant at home, in the kitchen ?
Let’s get down to the economic reality of the situation of an unplanned pregnancy on a family, where a working woman, ( think professionally trained BUT LOW PAID ones like teachers and nurses) is critical to a family.
If the Churches can’t be responsible employers, they should focus on the prime mission, where the rules of commerce don’t apply.
“The government may not do that”
The believers ” logic” , all begins with the premise that only THEIR moral values are valid so they, and only they must be enforced by the government.
The reality is ; that Catholic woman use birth control and real moral decisions are made not by governments or Church governments but individuals.
Morals decisions are the business of the God given free will of the individual, alone, MAY-BE with the help the Holy Spirit, according to your own dogma, right ?
For everything there is a season … so judge ye not, Whatwell .
Non-profits exists everywhere. Just look at your local credit unions, for example. The reason why they are not taxed is because they do not operate for profit. Now would you want to tax local shelters for the poor? They are non-profit as well, yet they collect money from benefactors they solicit. Non-profit hospitals and for-profit hospitals exists everywhere, side by side in some cases. In fact is many employees would rather work for less pay in a non-profit organization. I don’t understand where the problems is.
If Catholics want to make more babies, that’s their prerogative. You can do the same, that is, have more babies. You seem to overlook the fact that no one is obligated by law to be a Catholic and to comply with all it teachings fully.
Incidentally, I do not condemn (or judge) you or anybody else. You have my blessings.
the bishop is wrong- there is no discrimination. don’t want to use birth control, don’t
but if you take tax dollars, you follow the rules or don’t take them
ya want a theocracy based law. perhaps you should move
”
What you are proposing is that the federal government discriminate against religious institutions who for reasons of conscience may not participate in health insurance policies that cover contraceptives…”
Why, and under whose authority are you proposing that the Church need not render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s ? If the Church can’t run businesses under the law of the land and provide equal opportunity, compensation and protection to their employees because of the Church’s own moral issues then why isn’t the Church in the wrong business ?
Would it not be more logical for him to condemn those in his congregation that may choose to defy him by choosing to use birth control rather than a politician who supports their right to be able to make such a decision? This is the kind of thinking that has and will continue to drive people away from the church as well as any political party that shares similar views on this subject. So be it, as far as I’m concerned anyone who wants to take our freedom to think and act on our own doesn’t deserve any kind of following.
As long as people believe that the way to eternal life lies in a great healthcare package, they will not have faith in anything that really matters anyway.BTW, your last sentence just drips with irony.
Every religious nut thinks they will go to heaven, but no one wants to get sick and die.
Go figure, Jonny
Looks like Osama Obama wants to create his own religion.
It seems strange that the liberal left has no problem knocking around Christianity, but fear to even mention the Muslim faith…!
And if they want to live here, well ok, but learn the language.
that too
Read the article. Catholics are the subject.
Only a mindless fool looks at a subject without relatable context
That context speaks loads about some fools, too, .
Gee… has Bishop Malone condemned all the lovely Catholic pedophile priests who molested all the Catholic children? I seriously doubt it. Yes, I guess Catholics don’t need to worry about birth control as we all know young boys who are molested by adult male priests DON’T GET PREGNANT……Pfffffffft.
Actually he has…..
We have what is known as seperation of church and state. I think if you sit back and think about this a moment you will acknowledge that this issue is simply determined on a legal basis. Had the issue of providing birth control under their insuance plan been raised it would have been determined by the courts that under equal rights the services would have to be provided their as is done under similar situations. Not a statement on religion but it is a statement regarding equal treatment.
Separation of church and state is exactly why this should not be a Presidential or constitutional concern. If I work for a Catholic organization, then I’d best be buying in to the dogma. If not, what business do I have being an employee? If I don’t believe in using pesticides, I have an obligation not to work for chemical companies.
And, the Catholic church…any chuch, has no business hiring staff who do not want to abide by the rules.
The catholic church has not been slow to enter into political debates in the past. They want it both ways.
Will someone tell that man ITS 2012 for the love of God!!! Get with the program, and yes the program is BIRTH CONTROL!
It is time for these organizations to treat their employees like first class citizens.
It is time for all corporate organizations to treat their employees like EQUAL first class citizens and just as much like real people as the Supreme Court’s claims that corporations
now are.
Bishop (I don’t know what that means…) Malone says, “the mandate would require Catholic institutions to make an “impossible” choice of either violating their moral code or denying health care coverage.” Does the mandate force church-affiliated employees to put themselves in a position to require this sort of health care coverage? Practice what you preach BM. Where’s the faith that the good followers -will- stay their path and avoid situations that -could- require such coverage? Mind yo biznassssss…..
Maybe Bishop Malone can make a strand of pills and pray to them. It pains me to have to defend these people, but what an absolutely ridiculous requirement. What should an employer be required to provide coverage for? Nothing. Don’t want to provide free birth control? Don’t. Don’t want to provide free Viagra? Great. Don’t want to provide free cancer screenings? Ok. Don’t want to cover cancer treatment? Not my business.
The issue at stake here is nothing less than our liberty, and Barack Obama is no friend to we who loved the country we grew up in. A transformative president indeed. These are the kinds of heavy handed mandates that we can expect from the Obama administration.
If the Catholic Church would worry more about protecting children who already walk this earth from pedophilia, they would better serve their flock then protecting their order from the sins they commit.
How about if they just stay the hell out of politics.
If the president would have worried more about facilitating an economic recovery than pushing his personal ideals over the last three years, all in this nation would have been better served.
How about he just stay out of religion.
Therein lies the rub … many don’t consider controlling reproduction a religious matter. What next, will masturbation follow as the next logical target/argument for those who wish to protect life?
I find it absurd how those who are so concerned over the when life starts matter are the same ones who want to refuse assistance to this precious life once born?
Consistent inconsistence.
Therein lies the rub to the rub … many don’t think Obama should be controlling reproduction with the law. He is the one requiring someone to take a specific action. The Church suggests an action based on its belief. Follow it or not; it is up to you. Don’t follow Obama’s law; get arrested.
Everyone knows masturbation doesn’t peril life, it just might cause blindness!
OK for The Church to be exempted for purely religious functions. But for those functions that employ or serve non-Church members, especially hospitals, the exemptions are off.
Thank God for the Church on account of its teachings and efforts to protect unborn babies. Some of your friends and relatives might not be alive today as a result of its efforts.
Also, thank God for the Church again for trying to protect religious freedoms Obama’s Administration is attempting to curtail. Let’s hope its voice succeeds as it uses its Constitutional rights to speak out.
you take government money- you follow government rules- its that simple
there also might not be a hitler, stalin, etc alive today- think about it
But the church does follow government rules! I think you have it the other way around. Under the Constitution the government is required to respect religious conscience.
and it does, they aren’t forcing the church to do anything– but if you take government money , you follow the rules ,, so simple even a conservative should understand
don’t like the rules, don’t take the money
I have no issue with protecting all life. But this church you speak of is responsible for more death and destruction than any army that’s ever existed, i.e. the dark ages to mention a thousand years of terror.
I would find it more acceptable if those who professed to be in alignment with these teaching were consistent in their thinking and actions. Once this precious life has landed these teachings seem to be only that, when based on the treatment precious life is given. My fundamental argument is not with the precepts of the Christian faith it’s with its followers who will insist on forcing their beliefs into government and onto others who ask not for their views.
So are you saying that followers of the Church should not have any right to express themselves and contribute to the political process? Tell me, how are the followers “forcing” their beliefs and more than non-followers?
No contribute to the political process, keep religion out of it, but instead they are,
Shooting, bombing and threating doctors who practice legal abortion.
Insisting that amendments be made to the Constitution that are religious in nature.
Preaching politics from the pulpit and sending illiterate voters to the polls while instructing them who to vote for. Something that is done in rural Maine as a standard and proves to be a way to control and alter voting results.
Altering history by selectively editing text books that blend science, history and politics into mental mush that reflects religious leanings.
If things like I’ve listed above are the way they contribution the democratic process then their churches should not be granted tax exempt status.
Yes, I also heard Pope Paul VI was an imposter and that the current Pope was a Nazi. Like all your accusations this one too is a legend.
So , you repeat those stories ?
Snap!
“So are you saying that followers of the Church should not have any right to express themselves and contribute to the political process?”
Aren’t you saying that employees of the Church should not have the freedom to choose to use contraceptives ?
AND don’t others have the same ” right to express themselves and contribute to the political process” even if it’s counter to your Church’s dogmatic, over reaching, political positions, monsignor ?
Do unto others … ?
Whether Catholics use or don’t use these methods is between the bishop and his flock. Just making them available doesn’t make President Obama culpable of any wrong-doing. But, if the bishop condemns the President, he sure will get headlines, won’t he? Pathetic!
Would you please identify the “religious freedoms Obama’s administration is trying to curtail”
Please be specific as to actual legislation coming from the white house that curtails religious freedom.
Thanks.
How does not allowing women to choose to use contraceptives prevent the abortion
of unplanned babies ?
Catholic Charities is NOT a charity .. it’s a BUSINESS. It’s an outsourcing BUSINESS. It receives the vast amount it’s funding from the State, Federal government grants, taxpayers paid federal faith based initiatives, tax deductable United Fund grants. As such, it must abide by the rule of the land.. which are the rules agreed to by the citizens in open transparent elections. Now, if catholics want to restrict adoptions, they can form and fund their own organization.. hopefully funded entirely by the catholic lay and the vatican and not the taxpayers.
They won’t.There’s too much money in both.Now if we could get them to stay out of politics AND tax the churches who pay nothing while raping children.
A catholic priest condemning the president is worse than LePage telling Obama to go to hell.
Obama’s “non-universal” health care reform that does little but spend billions in tax payer money, shows the control Obama wants to have over everyone in America and what choices they can make.
Make a decision for yourself in 2012, elect someone else.
They make these institutions somewhat “autonomous” so they can get the various state and federal financial benefits. That’s when they lose various exemptions that a church gets.
Next the Catholic Church will decide that it’s a sin for women to wear shoes, too. Then we can all be barefoot AND pregnant…just the way they want us.
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-catholic-bishop-resigns-says-2-kids-145729758.html
Well, here’s a guy I’ll bet the Catholic church wished had used birth control.
Gotta love the last paragraph, too. A $198 MILLION dollar settlement for 144 people raped by priests.
Does the Catholic church really think it can speak to moral and ethical issues with a straight face??
i think obama is saying catholic’s don’t use any type of birth controll and there for keep having baby’s they don’t need or can’t afford and who has to cough up the money to support these kids- should be mandatory that everyone with out a health issue (to contracepives) have to take them-not trying to insult anyone but woman on welfare should be made to take them that way they r not getting preggo while on welfare and they can better their life and get off welfare and support themselves and family. i had a guy come to my door today and asked me if i wanted to buy some meat for cash cause he over stocked his freezer when he got his foodstamps.. i’m like huh?? come again-u don’t need those foodstamps. this happend this afternoon in milford maine. the guy drives a white pick up truck then my sis tells me he does it every month.
Perhaps better to institute intelligence, academic, and personality testing before any man or woman can have intercourse. There you go!
Report him.
Catholics aren’t following Church dogma as it stands. They haven’t for quite a few years. I was raised as a Catholic and attended parochial schools through the 9th grade. In my elementary school there was only 2 families of siblings that came from an obviously dogma abiding families.
One had 19 and the other had 21 children. They both had farms. The rest of us were I guess destined to hell for not growing up with that many kids.
My Grandmothers were both dead before I was born, both must be in heaven. I’m not sure what killed my fathers mother, she had 11, my father being the youngest. My mothers mother had 4 girls and 5 boys. None of the boys survived infancy and she died weeks after giving birth to my youngest aunt at the ripe old age of 46.
I wonder what the policy of Catholic hospitals on providing D and C’s is?
oh my goodness! Plan B doesn’t induce any abortions!
Obama is now taking over the Catholic Church. The man is a maniac. How dare him. Good riddance after the next election.
It’s not like the rule is requiring Catholics to use birth control! It only makes them able to choose to use it, if they wish. The Catholic hierarchy seems terrified that their parishioners might not abide by the official rules. Not my problem.
On a personal note, I recall vividly a Catholic couple I knew in the 1970s. They married, and in 10 months were the proud parents of twins! Three months later, their demeanor changed. She was pregnant again, and went on to have another set of twins. I’ve wondered ever since what went on in the minds of this lovely couple, as nature taught them the sacrificies they would have to make to follow the teachings of their church–stop having sex vs. have the dozen or so children their fertility would likely produce. I have no quarrel with people who follow strong religious beliefs, by the way.
And let’s not forget that these Catholic organizations employ many non-Catholics. Their access to medical assistance should not be jeopardized because of their employment. The bishop is free not to use birth-control services as is anyone else who so chooses. A citizen’s access to medical services should not be compromised by the beliefs of his/her employer.
As for not quarreling with folks who hold strong religious beliefs, I would encourage all the quarreling possible to test those beliefs and the tenets on which they are founded. The church’s problems with birth control ultimately go back to Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas. Really!?!
Remember that slavery in this country and anti-Semitism everywhere was/are often justified on religious grounds.
Are those non-Catholics unable to access birth control? I think what you meant to say is that their employer should be subsidizing their access to birth control. How very fair minded.
Thank you for this important clarification. Yes, the employer should subsidize access to birth control just as the employer subsidizes medical interventions that aim to control other natural processes (cancer; diabetes; heart disease, etc.). This would be fair indeed.
Religion and politics have already entered the arena. He’s called Santorium. Now it’s only a matter of time before we hear him. Then the real fun begins !!
First, Catholic Charities chooses to apply for public funds just like every other Non Government Organization (NGO). Its an option, a choice. If this ruling creates such onerous duress, they can seek relief by not applying public funding in spite of their claims that Catholic Charities are indispensable. Indeed, other social services can meet the need. The District of Columbia City Council discovered that the sky did not cave in when Catholic Charities were replaced after they demanded exceptions.
Secondly, this is just a political response by a foreign government known as the Vatican through its United States Conferences of Catholic Bish0ps masquerading as victims because Catholic Charities continues to apply for funds from private sources and continues to accommodate to conditions set by the private benefactors. As a former board voting member of a health care philanthropy foundation, we had a standing order that all beneficiaries meet complete compliance in educating their clients about all forms of birth control. Catholic Charities never had a conflict with any our terms. They always took the money.
Now we must provide free birth control? You want to
use birth control stuff…buy it. Next on the agenda is
free diapers, that is coming too.
the catholic church has no business attempting to spout morality.
it is the most immoral of institutions, similar to most religions.
I agree 100%. A bunch of immoral hypocrites. Religions are nothing more that cults that seek to control people.
Great statement. It is all about control.
“it is the most immoral of institutions, similar to most religions.”
This anti birth control policy encourages abortion, for one fine example.
If I were head of the Catholic Church, I would take this to the Supreme Court. Seperation of Church and State. One has to ask why a Socialist Marxist President is forcing this to happen? Actually, I think the Church should simply say no they won’t comply and let it go all the way through the courts until it goes to the Supreme court. This way the world would see OBAMA for what he really is, if they don’t already know. You would have to have your head in the sand not to know what OBAMA is all about.
Get real .. Catholic charities IS FUNDED by the state. If they want their way.. they have to fund their own way. Your under the delusion that catholic charities is a real charity and funded by catholics.. no opinion could be more wrong.
The article does not really state much about the reasoning behind this but with the mention that the churches and parishes would be exempt and that Catholic Charities, INCORPORATED, would not be, sends up a flag.
I suspect this is not so much any kind of issue of Obama forcing his views on religion than it is of compliance with the law. Those “Catholic” institutions mentioned are separate entities (corporations) from the church and receive Federal funds. If a corporation receives Federal funds it must comply with the law unless specifically exempted.
If the Catholic church wishes to play in the secular sandbox, they must comply with the secular laws. Seems simple enough to me.
I often hear these complaints about how a church refused to rent out a reception hall to a gay wedding couple. Well, the church ventured into the secular commercial world by offering to rent its hall for a profit. It advertised in the newspaper and the only real reason for refusing to rent was simply because the couple was gay. Replace the word “gay” with “black” and you can see how this sounds. Can you imagine refusing to rent a hall to a couple simply because they were black or inter-racial?
Churches can do whatever they wish to do no matter how bizarre and out-of-date and out-of-touch with reality it seems to most people. However, when they start accepting secular tax dollars from ALL the people, then they must serve ALL the people.
Those are secular rules that shouldn’t exist. It’s unamerican to tell a person or organization, religious or not, what they must provide for benefits or how they must use their own private property.
I disagree. There is a distinct separation of church and state. So much, in fact, that churches and religious orders are exempt from taxes as they officially are not part of the secular world. For this exemption from the rest of the secular world, they are entitled to pursue whatever they wish. They are given great autonomy and are mostly left alone by government.
Where the problem occurs is when these churches CHOOSE to delve into the secular world. If they wish to compete with other private firms for secular tax dollars then they must comply with our rules. Do not think for a moment that Catholic Charities, INC., (CCI) is doing all their work out of the goodness of their hearts. They are paid to do these services and they are in competition with other private social services companies. This was the case in DC recently when CCI refused to follow the DC law and provide adoption services to gay couples. The adoption services plus other services amounted to $22M per year (my recollection). CCI was “forced” (their words) to pull out and threatened to leave DC. The DC Council said, “Fine, let’s put the whole deal out for competitive bidding.” Once CCI learned this, they countered offered and said they would provide services, except adoption, for a price. An agreement was reached and the adoption piece was farmed out to another private firm.
Amazing how attitudes change when $22M is on the line.
Furthermore, DC required all companies (CCI, Inc., included) to not discriminate against same-sex spouses. If benefits were given to straight spouses, then they had to be provided to same-sex spouses (as gay marriage is legal in DC).
CCI, Inc.’s response? Simple. They canceled all spousal benefits, straight and gay. How very Christian of them. Sounds rather spiteful to me.
No, the deal is this – if a religious organization is competing with a private company to provide services and tax dollars are involved, the religious organization’s subsidiary company (in this case, Catholic Charities, INCORPORATED) must comply with the secular law. No special dispensation given to them. Seems fair to me. They don’t like it? Don’t compete in a contract in which you do not feel you can comply with the terms.
You didn’t disagree with what I wrote, you invented an argument, attributed it to me, and then proceded to discredit it. This isn’t about the Papistry, it’s about liberty. Those terms are unacceptable and absolutely nobody should have to comply with them. In fact, they shouldn’t exist. The Obama administration’s agenda is nothing short of fully transforming our society with this type of left wing social engineering.
Again, I disagree. If you want to change the laws, go through the channels and get them changed. As far as liberty goes, even libertarians and atheists must comply with the law. The law says you cannot discriminate. If you don’t like it, don’t play, or get the law changed. Simple. This only involves religion to the point where the religious crowd believes they should get an exemption from complying with the law just because they are a religion. I would feel the same way if a group of left-handed, autistic, Lithuanians asked for the an exemption. These are my tax dollars, too. If you want to play in the business world, you have to play by the rules.
I would hope the Obama administration does transform society. It is long overdue. We have politicians who cannot say or do anything without yammering on about how they “prayed for an answer.” What amazes me is the public actually believes they give a tinker’s damn about religion. Some do, but many more just parrot the lines to appease the masses. Why this uptick in wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeve? When I was a kid, no politician ever spoke of religion, his or that of anyone else. It looks like mass brown-nosing to me.
Here is a rule I wish would be put in place – politicians can no longer use the generic word “Christian.” They have to actually do the full-disclosure and tell people to what actual faith they belong. That, alone, based upon what I have seen in the news where the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists do not consider Mormonism as “Christian,” should cause enough in-fighting to ensure Obama an easy win in November. Of course, Ron Paul running a 3rd party would achieve the same result.
In a nutshell, everyone needs to follow the same rules when it comes to government contracts.
I wish you folks would read the entire Obama health care bill, the one Nancy said to pass and we can read it later. There are some shocking surprises comeing down the road. Most of them after the next presidential election. Calculated, I must add !
For the record, the birth control is not “free,” it is paid for in the premiums. Nor is it “taxpayer funded”; again, paid for in the premiums. And, birth control is included in all plans today, unless it is specifically removed. Catholics are likely doing that in churches, but may not be in larger institutions like schools and hospitals.