Whose choice?
In response to Kathy Walker’s letter to the editor regarding choice (“Women and choice,” Feb. 21), I would point out two things.
First, I believe we still live in a society where freedom of religion is valued. When the Catholic Church resists Obama’s mandate to provide insurance covering contraception it is making a choice to follow the tenets of its faith. Or is it only women who deserve choice?
Secondly, if a woman feels this is unacceptable, she can choose to purchase contraception or work somewhere else.
Peggy Soneson
Orrington
The Green alternative
In response to the Feb. 21 editorial, “What’s more important — presidential or party preference?” I would like to point out that there are more than two political parties in the state. There are three, including the Green Independent Party, and there is also a fourth now with Americans Elect — a party in Maine only due to ballot access.
As chairman of the Green Independent Party, I can tell you the caucus requirement can be a good organizational tool if there are a good amount of Greens in a particular municipality. However, in rural areas where we have not been very active, it can be challenging. Those who are registered Green, show yourself and get active. This is a good year for our party — we have a number of people running for state representative who can help our state get back to serving its people.
We also have candidates for president and you can help choose the nominee if you hold a caucus or go to one. Roseanne Barr is running for the president, along with Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay. You can also register Green Independent at any caucus just by showing up and being involved.
To attend or host a caucus, go to mainegreens.org and click “Caucus 2012.” If you are interested in finding out more about the Green Independent Party, visit our website or find us on Facebook as the Maine Green Independent Party. Contact me if you have any questions at nate@mainegreens.org.
Nathan Shea
Levant
Take back control
Every week another report comes out on how the super rich rig the system against the rest of us and jeopardize America’s future.
There are plenty of solutions to our monumental problems, but they cannot be explored, debated, funded and implemented because of the undue influence of a powerful few. We need to wrestle back power from Wall Street, big banks, big oil, big pharmaceuticals, the military-industrial complex, the super rich and their puppets in government. They work every day to undermine solutions for our economy, environment, education, food safety, infrastructure, jobs, health care, manufacturing, research and development, tax system, national defense, world standing and ultimately democracy itself — all for the sake of obscene profits.
Washington will remain tone-deaf to growing movements to get the big, secret money out of politics, unless we all demand it. Congress would rather protect the status quo and big contributors who bleed this country dry. Politicians perpetuate a smokescreen charade of bickering over inappropriate, divisive issues, pretending to serve us while letting crucial problems go unsolved and our republic slip away.
America is not broken, just our politics. We have everything we need to solve our problems, except a level playing field and a collective will. We can fix everything if we get the money out of politics and keep it out. The Internet’s ability to root out and immediately expose corruption now enables us to do it.
Let’s stand together and take back control of our own destiny.
David Estey
Belfast
Jail’s revolving door
What is wrong with this picture? A man gets shot during a home invasion, gets released on a token amount of bail, gets arrested again for burglary and then is released on bail again. Maybe the system is waiting for him to commit a major crime so bail can then be refused.
It is no wonder that we have so much crime. If the courts can’t hold a dangerous person then maybe we should all get concealed weapons permits so that we can all protect ourselves.
John L. Clark
Bangor
Vive la difference
It was distressing to read the letter to the editor “Christmas Is Over” in the BDN on Feb. 21. I felt sorry for the writer in that she has not learned the most valuable of lessons that differences are different not right or wrong. She may not keep her decorations up into February but that doesn’t mean everyone else should take theirs down.
I once went to a Valentine’s party where the activity was undercoating the Christmas tree. That may not be the way I would do it but that didn’t mean it was wrong for that individual. Isn’t this where many problems begin, when my way is the right and only way? Please be generous and allow individual differences.
Elizabeth M. Fauver
Machias
Your balance is my bias
I wish to thank state Sen. Roger Katz for writing and the BDN for publishing the op-ed article “Is Sussman a media threat?” Thank you for the best laugh I’ve had in quite awhile.
Sen. Katz is worried about the possible influence of Mr. Sussman at three Maine papers? The senator commends the reporters at those papers for being “fair, objective and unbiased” but worries about the future.
The senator obviously doesn’t worry about the present and Keith Rupert Murdock and his News Corporation. News Corp. is listed as a media conglomerate that owns 800 companies worldwide, including the Wall St. Journal, the Sunday Times, too many other papers to list here, and Fox News, which has been shown over and over to be anything but “fair, objective and unbiased.”
Thank you senator for your article and for showing me, once again, that it’s only OK if a Republican does it.
Russell Mullins
Fort Kent
Paint the town
Feeling a bit melancholy with no sweetheart on St. Valentine’s Day, I was “heartened” to read about Bangor’s mysterious Valentine’s visitor.
I took a walk downtown Tuesday evening to take in the array of hearts firsthand. Every heart had been hand painted!
A rosy glow settled inside me. Thank you, Bandit. I love Bangor, too!
Kate Tuck
Bangor
PEGGY,
Your reasoning is to simple for liberal comprehension, but I’m sure it’s a violation of liberal edict.
NATHAN,
” Green Independent Party “. Sounds like an affiliate of the ” American Commie Party “.
DAVID,
I make a motion we get you to run as our liberal green candidate for governor, do I hear a second?
JOHN,
It’s all about gun control, you know being able to hit your target each and every time smack in the center.
Leave it to AMNazi to turn the term “liberal” (meaning freedom), into a dirty word. Then again, ROBthePUBLICans are only concerned with their bizarre view of the world, and so for them, maybe REAL freedom is a dirty word.
amcon–Freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion–especially overbearing, restrictive and antiquated religions such as yours. Please read Ms. Fauver’s letter.
Amcon doesn’t have a religion. He has a set of petty hates that he puts on display everyday.
“Freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion”. Sorry, but that is not true. You see, freedom of religion allows each of us to choose any religion we wish, and also allows us to not choose a religion at all. The act of displaying our religious beliefs, as long as they do not harm others, is a right that we all should fully enjoy in this country.
There is no such thing as a right to “freedom from religion”. That’s like saying that we have a right to freedom from love or freedom from hate just because we don’t like one or the other of them. The First Amendment ensures us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Yes, but when policies are codified by government that conform with a particular religion’s principles, but not my religion, it impinges on my freedom to exercise.
Not that it has anything to do with the contraception debate. To me, the issue is more how much a corporation can/should dictate what is covered and what is not in their health care offerings. It’s a slippery slope. What if it violates my religious principles to pay for cardiac bypass surgery? Or any cancer treatment (because cancer is a curse from god)?
We as a nation have decided to leave our health care in the hands of corporate “benefits” and as such, I think it’s critical we establish standards of coverage independent of “conscience”. I don’t know where the line is…
Right. That’s why all the atheists and agnostics are in jail and deprived of their First Amendment rights.
Yes, there is. Freedom of religion, means I make my own choices about what I want to believe and you don’t force your garbage onto me. That’s freedom from religion. It’s the same thing.
As usual… bravo on all counts. Your response to Peggy is incredibly spot on.
You left out Russell. I guess not even you could defend Fox News.
Read the national party platform of the Green Party and you will have no doubts. Compare to the communist party platform and to the Nazi party platform of 1920.
Green Party = neo-communist party.
Ms Soneson:
Churches most certainly do have a choice. They can choose not to provide contraceptive coverage in their religious institutions, where they support the institution financially and hire believers to provide religiously oriented services to other believers.
The institutions decrying to loss of religious freedom are not religious organizations. If you are honest with yourself Ms Soneson you will acknowledge the difference between a soup kitchen that accepts federal and state funding, provides food, not religious services, serves the general public without proselytizing and hires the general public with out testing for religious beliefs and a day care center run by the church, for members of the church, paid for by the church, staffed by members of that sect and with the purpose of giving a sound religious start to the children it serves.
This is a health care issue. Stop trying to make it into a religious freedom issue. Your conservative desperation is showing.
Yes, Obamacare’s mandate is indeed a religious freedom issue. It mandates individuals and institutions to pay for services they are opposed to on conscientious grounds. If that is not a 1st Amendment violation by the government, then I wonder what one is. Also, 1st Amendment freedom is not confined to mere churches. Check it out for yourself.
Incidentally, if contraceptives was a health care issue, then tell me how its use to prevent or end pregnancy prevents or treats diseases, heals injuries, or ameliorates physical defects like all other health care insurance coverage is tended to do? As far as I know there are no objections to the use of contraceptive drugs to increase fertility.
The insurers are providing the coverage. It costs the Church nothing, as a plan that covers birth control has a lower premium than one that doesn’t and has to cover accidental pregnancies. The First Amendment does not protect the right of the Bishops to force their choices on non-religious employees of Catholic hospitals. Could the Bishops demand that their hospital employees all wear burqas? Get real.
Your “health care” requirement thing is a ridiculous argument. Viagra is covered by insurance. Your point is moot.
Viagra should not be covered either.
Then what’s with the selective outrage? What’s with the this newfound phony criterias being created like “ameliorates physical defects”? This is a sham to get some punches in on the President. It has nothing to do with actual qualms — it’s seizing an opportunity, pure and simple.
But it is covered. And, it was covered ……… automatically, no fuss, no fight, no moral grandstanding, no lectures about the purpose of sex …….. nothing. Where was the outrage about the immorality of sex simply for fun. Oh, that’s right, men were deciding to pay for a prescription that would enhance men’s sexual pleasure. Sheesh talk about a double standard, and this from a bunch of old men in long skirts that aren’t even supposed to be having sex…….. with anyone, let alone children.
Whawell, here is an example of a First Amendment violation.
A pastor inveighs against abortion as against their god’s commandments, in the pulpit, on Sunday. He gathers a group of like minded parishioners to work on repealing Roe vs Wade because their god told them to do so. They submit bills before legislatures. They take out adds in the papers. They attend legislative hearings where they tell their representatives that abortion is against their religion and they want Roe vs Wade repealed or barring that make abortions impossible to get. They march in front of clinics. They intimidate women. The kill providers. And all because they believe a certain set of religious tenets gives them the right to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.
Yes, some women may have been intimidated by some demonstrations. But most demonstrations are nothing but intimidating. As to killing of abortion providers, these acts were limited to individuals, not churches trying to incite violence. Any protest movement, like Martin Luther King’s civil rights marches, is bound to cause some individuals to incite violence. With that, overall, there has been little violence because violence is anathema to pro-lifers in general. But these violations of human rights are not prompted by the government. The 1st Amendment concerns people’s rights from unwarranted government intrusion, that is, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, etc. It is not concerned about misdeeds of law-breaking by individual citizens.
Wikipedia reports that anti-abortion activists have murdered 8 people (including 4 MDs), engaged in 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 173 acts of arson, 91 attempted bombings, and 619 bomb threats. The numbers go up once one talks about trespass, criminal mischief, etc. This is hardly the peaceful movement you portray.
The First Amendment protects religious belief from government coercion. It does not protect religious activities from facially neutral policies applicable to all. Read the case law, starting with Reynolds v. US in 1878, a Supreme Court case that allowed prosecution of a Mormon for bigamy. I know of no Supreme Court case that would support the First Amendment position the Bishops now take. Free exercise of religion does not mean that you get to effectively exercise religious choices for your employees.
The Bishops can believe and preach all they want about the evils of contraception. They cannot insist upon a special carve out from mandatory contraception coverage for Catholic hospitals and universities that may employ more Catholics than non-Catholics. The employee of that hospital has a guarantee of equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. The EEOC, in 2000, declared it illegal to refuse to provide birth control coverage to employees in a health insurance plan that otherwise covered all prescription drugs.
The real issue is not about contraceptives per se. It is about forcing religious institutions to be part of something that is morally unacceptable to them. In the case of bigamy by Mormons, the court had to decide where the overwhelming interest lied in both cases, that is, the interest of protecting the church’s practice of bigamy versus the interest of the state to protect children. I doubt very much however the current high court of the land will rule in favor of the state’s current interest in mandating contraceptive insurance coverage for all women. This coverage is not even remotely close to being a real a health issue. Since many law suits challenging the Obamacare mandate have already been filed, it’s just a matter of time when the high court renders a decision. My guess is that the mandate as is will be struck down.
I’ll check your Wikipedia source concerning the other matter.
The mandate of the Affordable Care Act will be upheld by a vote that will be either 5-4, 6-3, or 7-2. Justice Kennedy won’t rewrite over 100 years of constitutional interpretation of the commerce clause, the taxation clause and the necessary and proper clause. I suspect that Roberts and Alito will join the majority, although that is less certain. If you read the decisions by the Circuit Courts below and consider how many Republican appointees are finding the mandate constitutional, that will give you an insight into how slim the chances are of a Supreme Court win for the challengers.
As to contraceptive coverage, the hospitals are not paying one dime for the different coverage and the actual purchase of the contraceptives is made by the insurer. This is even more of a no-brainer from a constitutional perspective. Read Employment Division v. Smith, a decision by a staunch Roman Catholic Antonin Scalia, which allowed the State of Oregon to deny unemployment compensation benefits to a Native American who was fired for using peyote as part of his sacrament. The facially neutral statute was uniformly applied. The losing appellant had actually engaged in religious conduct for which he was punished. Here, the Bishops want to micromanage the health care policy provisions that apply to someone else and will not cost them anything. In the eyes of the law, they may have no standing to challenge the underlying mandate. If they do have standing, the government’s actions do nothing more than make it harder for the Bishops to enforce their will on non-consenting employees. That Scalia found no First Amendment violation in Smith makes it incredibly hard to set aside a government action with no direct effect on the appellants and no implication as serious as denying benefits because one has taken a sacrament of one’s church.
Contraception avoids the risk of pregnancy, which can be life-threatening for some women. That you would deny that it addresses a “real health issue” is a sad testament to how out of touch you are. I have had close family members almost die in childbirth. If one is truly opposed to abortion, he should be demanding increased access to birth control or voluntary sterilization. Women are not on this planet simply to reproduce.
I’m glad you have to patience to explain and explain and explain and explain the same thing over and over and over to Whawell. I’ve given up.
I am very patient. Four months from now, when the Affordable Care Act is upheld, Whawell might reflect back on who told him the likely outcome and begin to distrust the pablum Faux News has fed him. It is really sad that he can’t see pregnancy as anything but a woman’s duty.
I’m glad to know you’re patient. So am I! Four months from now…..
Incidentally, during recent discussions on SS marriage I have been arguing all along that women are not expected to have children when they get married to, well, men of course. Does this sound like someone who “can’t see pregnancy as anything but a woman’s duty “?
Sally, I doubt you’ve given up. :)
“As to contraceptive coverage, the hospitals are not paying one dime for
the different coverage and the actual purchase of the contraceptives is
made by the insurer”. That’s false. In fact certain employers, with the exception of churches, will be required to pay premiums for health insurance plans that cover contraceptive and sterilization or cease being in business. That means most Catholic hospitals, for instance, will either be forced to comply or shut their doors.
“Contraception avoids the risk of pregnancy, which can be life-threatening for some women”.
If pregnancy is really life-threatening for women, nothing stops her from going to the local pharmacy to get contraceptives. She doesn’t even need to have health insurance coverage for that, but if she wants such health insurance coverage, its available on the open market.
Now tell me, how many cases of pregnancy are life-threatening for women? One in a thousand, maybe? That said, I think we should have mandatory health insurance coverage for cleats for people to wear on their boots when it’s icy outside. I can tell you far more people get injured from slipping and falling then women suffer from life-threatening pregnancies. I lost a dear cousin who split his head from such a fall. Would you be willing to consider cleats to wear for slippery conditions health care? If contraception is health care, then certainly cleats for your boots ought to be as well, like many more devices one can come up in his mind.
You can consider me out-of-touch-with-reality. Whether or not I am however is not the issue.
I did a Google search on “abortion violence”. Interestingly enough the first web address was the Wkikpedia report on “anti-abortion violence”, not “abortion violence”. I scrolled down the page and even went on to page 2 and 3 and found no report by Wikipedia on abortion violence. I’m not surprised by this. Wikipedia is not an unbiased source for much of the “unbiased” information it claims to provide.
Rather than quote you statistics, I’ll have your refer to the web link below, more specifically to page 8 of the document in the link.
Pro-Choice Violence
As you can see there is a lot of violence committed by the “pro-abortion crowd”, much of it you don’t read about in the news.
I’ve been involved in the pro-life movement for over two decades, not to mention demonstrations. All the violence I’ve witnessed came from pro-abortion supporters. In one case a driver attempted to run us over with his vehicle. Thankfully one of the protesters was alert enough to warn the others in time. In every protest, we’re heckled at and given obscene gestures. The leaders of the protests always remind us not to react. Many of the protests nationally are now taped on video and audio to discourage false accusations and legal complaints, especially by clinic workers, the primary source of these in the past. Truth to many of them is not important.
Again, nearly all of the violence reported in the Wikipedia source against abortion clinics and workers was not instigated nor caused by abortion protesters. Of course, the media rarely if ever point this out.
Is not the murder of a doctor who performs abortions the ultimate act of anti-abortion protest? Did not Dr. Tiller’s murder, and every other murder of doctors and clinic workers, come at the hands of someone with strong ties to the anti-abortion movement? When you call a lawful medical procedure “murder” you invite the murder of the “murderers.” There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Point to a single instance of an anti-abortion protester being murdered. There are none.
Pro-life protesters don’t kill abortion providers. All those killings of abortion providers were not done by protesters. They were done by rogue individuals who acted on their own on their own time. They were not even part of an organized protest. Pro-lifers are pro-life. They are not about taking human life, not even nascent human life. Yet, the media insist on painting us black, on trying to make us responsible for murders, which is absolutely ludicrous.
Oh really?? James Kopp, who killed Dr. Slepian, was affiliated with a militant Roman Catholic anti-abortion group called “The Lambs of Christ.” He designed locks they used to lock the doors of abortion clinics. Scott Roeder, the killer of Dr. Tiller, wrote for the anti-abortion newsletter, “Prayer & Action News.” I could google the remaining murderers, but I see little point.
You just can’t make things up. You can’t welcome someone into your protests and then act SHOCKED when they take your claims about “murder” seriously. If I accept your premise that human life begins at conception and is as worthy of protection as the life of a five year old child, then we should be prosecuting the in vitro fertilization clinics for thousands of murders for all the fertilized eggs they dispose of with the consent of the “parents.”
Do you consider the destruction of a fertilized egg the intentional taking of a human life?
I was well aware of those individuals you just mentioned. But my point is that they were rogues. Pro-life groups speak out against violence, whether inside or outside the womb. Whenever there is any type of civil rights movement, there is always violence. Does this mean that these movements are responsible to this violence? Absolutely not. In fact, we pro-lifers deplore it because we know it is counter-productive to our cause of bringing about an end to legalized abortion.
I’m glad you agree with me concerning when human life begins. As you know it is a well established scientific fact. I believe it should be given the protection and dignity worthy of any human being. That protection should be extended to all human beings, whether in the womb or in a petri dish. Each in vitro fertilization procedure almost always involves the destruction of several fertilized eggs. Yes, it should be outlawed and prosecuted. Making a case for the intentional taking of human life (murder) would be very difficult if not impossible, as you implied. This however would not preclude the impositions of penalties, including a term of imprisonment.
I mistakenly thought that English was your native language. I will slowly explain basic English to you: The phrase “If I accept your premise that human life begins at conception . . .” takes its meaning from the first word “if.” Rather than endorse your position it shows how the position is logically flawed. Were you to tell me that you were a billie goat, I might respond: “If you were a billie goat you would have horns.” As you don’t have horns, I would be highlighting the foolishness of your belief.
Think about your sentence that says proving murder for destruction of a zygote would be “very difficult if not impossible.” Why? Taking the zygote from the petri dish and flushing it down the toilet is clearly a knowing and intentional act. It is as knowing and intentional as holding a ten year old child’s head underwater until she drowns. What is the missing element to the crime of murder? It is that no jury would ever recognize a zygote as a human being. It is a one-celled animal incapable of development. That is basic biology that you have somehow forgotten.
The most conservative state in the nation, Mississippi, refused to pass a referendum last fall that declared that human life begins at conception. Your church used to believe that human life began when a soul attached itself to the fetus at the time of quickening.
The risk of living in a world of absolutism is that you can often be absolutely wrong.
I’m sorry I misread your statement. When I read your statement I unintentionally missed the conditional “if”. Had you asked me for an explanation when you noticed something was awry, you could have saved your breath.
With respect to fertilized eggs resulting from in vitro fertilization, would destroying them or flushing them down the toilet be considered an intentional act? How else can one dispose of them? We know for instance they can’t be kept alive indefinitely. Even in the best artificial environments they weaken and die. To be kept alive indefinitely they must be “adopted” by a human mothers through implantation. When there are large numbers of these and not nearly enough adopting mothers, what else can one do but to leave them to die a quick or slow but certain death? That’s why I would not support a murder conviction if in vitro fertilization was outlawed. So where here am I be absolutely wrong? I’m just using common sense.
I don’t know why you bring up “your church” into the discussion when you don’t even know for sure what denomination I belong to, if any. Just because I defend the Catholic Church from false and exaggerated notions doesn’t mean I am a Catholic. I find it ironic that many posters here have a penchant for demonizing the Catholic Church. I don’t see them doing that to the Jewish religion or Islam. They complain about how gays, for instance, are being mistreated while doing everything they can to bring down Catholics. Well, I do neither. I express my opinion, taking care to follow the rules for posting. Maybe I do this, after all, because I am an “absolutist”. My respond to such charges however is this: “sticks and stones…”
Simple solution. All Catholic church affiliated and supported institutions should immediately fire anyone working for them who is not Catholic.
And the church is not denying women the right to obtain birth control. The church only objects to being forced to pay for it.
They can’t do that. There is however, a “ministerial exception” which allows them to bypass discrimination laws if the worker ““a role in conveying the church’s message and carrying out its mission.” So, a Catholic hospital couldn’t fire an Jewish nurse because of his/her religion — they could maybe fire a grief counselor though.
Then they should make “a role in conveying the church’s message and carrying out its mission.” a part of everyone’s official job description
Problem solved.
Giving a colonoscopy conveys the Church’s message?
bwahahahahah(gasp)ahahahahahah!!
Gives new meaning to the term genuflect.
LOL
IF it is a health issue, how about the health of the unborn child!
It must be such a blessing to be able to change jobs whenever you want, just because your boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss thinks that we should still be living in the dark ages and contraception couldn’t POSSIBLY have another reason for being prescribed by a doctor than to encourage a woman to have sex.
I mean, switching jobs is hard. Assuming you’re educated (blessing #1), finding a job in your field in the area you live in (#2), or else having the money saved up to spend on the costs of moving (#3), there’s still the business of uprooting your life and making new friends and changing your routine. So yeah, count your blessings that you can switch jobs to protest what –in this day and age– should be viewed by the majority of society as a TRAVESTY.
The older I get, the more I realize that the humanist future Gene Roddenberry imagined, a society based on science and not the superstitious ranting of men in funny hats — moreso than anything else as fantastical as FTL travel and transporters and computers that can turn energy into matter — is probably the least likely to be seen in my lifetime, or my children’s, or my children’s children’s.
a humanist future is about the most empty, bleak future i could ever imagine. The only thing keeping the world going would be human arrogance.
It is possible to be good without god. There’s that little thing called ethical behavior. Some of us subscribe to that.
Peggy: The Catholic Church has had plenty of choices…Throughout the centuries it chose to murder millions of people in a insane attempt to maintain its grip on wealth and power…it chose to cozy up to the Nazis during World War Two…Heck, it even chose as it’s current leader a former member of the Hitler Youth…It chose to turn a blind eye to hundreds (thousands) of pedophiles in its ranks…and it chose to blame the victims, shred the evidence, and play priest pedophile switcheroo between parishes.
I think I’ve had just about enough of choice by the Catholic church.
One might even suggest that the Catholic Church has abused its freedom.
It seems like you agree with Poster uncledrinky. Does not the truth matter to you or is your mind so clouded with hatred towards the Catholic Church that you accept any distortion about its character? I don’t suppose you like me either, do you?
The line about millions dying is untrue. However, there was a troubling silence of the Pope during WW II. Didn’t the current Pope have some connection with Hitler Youth growing up in Germany? I vaguely remember reading that he spent a year or so with them.
You might find those millions in north, south and central America. Or shall we just ignore native American deaths, again?
what the heck are you referring to? grasping at straws to defile the Church?
The Church is doing a very efficient job of defiling itself, and others.
Many thousands died in the Crusades and the various Inquisitions, both of which were inspired by various Popes. The record in the Americas is unclear. I am reading Charles Mann’s 1491, which is the most exhaustive look at the entire course of pre-Columbian America one can currently find.
The diseases Europeans brought unquestionably led to the deaths of tens of millions of Native Americans; the bullets and swords led to the deaths of tens of thousands. The Catholic Church comes out better in this sorry story than do the Protestant churches. The dominant Protestant churches saw extermination of Native Americans as a goal. On the Catholic side, friars like Bartolome de las Casas spoke out against the mass killing, and the French explorers worked closely with Native American tribes. The dominant Catholic goal was conversion of the unfaithful. Larger Native American populations survive in Central and South America for two reasons: they were more heavily populated in 1491 and they faced conquerors who were less bloodthirsty than the English in North America.
That’s a really great read. You might also like a book about the Pueblo Revolt in New Mexico in the 1600’s. Also fascinating.
Oh to find the time.
yes, all young males were REQUIRED to join, he left as soon as he was able. Do some research, for God sake, before you promote lies.
If you did the research you would realize that Pope Benedict and his family have given different versions of whether he was ever in the Hitler Youth. The latest version is that he was not and was drafted into the Luftwaffe as an adolescent. The first version is that he reluctantly attended meetings of the Hitler Youth. My memories are vague because the Pope’s memories are vague.
If you asked me about events when I was 14, my memory at best would be vague. But it’s a fact he joined Hitler’s youth against his will at age 14, that the family suffered the consequences of loss of school tuition for his failure to attend meetings, and that he later deserted the German forces (Luftwaffe, I suppose). That said, if you would ask my own family members of events concerning me when I was as young as fourteen, I doubt they would get it all right. And besides, I’m much younger than the Pope. Since I have a relevant web link at my immediately disposal, I’ll paste it below:
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=33536
He never joined Hitler Youth according to his brother. I have nothing against this Pope. I was responding to the blanket claim you made that none of the original post was true. If you read my above posts you will see that I have defended Catholicism from complicity in the slaughter of Native Americans, suggested that there have been conflicting reports about his Hitler Youth connections, and suggested that the Pope didn’t speak out enough against Hitler. FDR didn’t either. FDR is one of my heroes. The Pope’s silence during WW II has been a topic of discussion since the 1960s. I agree that it is a mixed record.
The allegation of troubling silence on the part of the Pope over Nazi war crimes during WW II gained prominence only in the past several years. Some critics of the Pope stated he could have done more to save Jews. It’s undeniable however that the Pope did much to save them. I am not going to give you an entire dissertation to defend him for two reasons: I’m not an historian, and even if I was very familiar with what efforts the Pope spared or didn’t spare to save Jews and others, I would not want to go through all the trouble detailing these efforts and missed opportunities. I will offer you instead two references. Because they are rather lengthy, I would suggest you read parts of them at random, particularly the first reference that chronicles events reflective of the Pope’s efforts. I would also urge you to read the last portion of each reference.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/pius12gs.htm
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html
Concerning Pope Benedict’s connection to Hitler’s Youth, his membership in this organization at age 14 was involuntary. For his failure to attend meetings his family was denied tuition to attend school. Later, he deserted the German army. At no time did he even pick up arms, according to his testimony. Some say he could have done more to resist Hitler’s government. Yes, maybe so, but at 14 years of age what more could we expect from any youth?
On the contrary Mr. Whaw, I expect you are a very nice person with some beliefs I think are inaccurate.
Your allegations against the church is pure contrivance intended to demonize people of faith. If only there was any straight-forward truth in what you say, I might have some respect for your opinion, but I can’t find any. Fabricate all you will, but that won’t change the truth and the real facts you purposefully distort. You come off to me no better than the Iranian puppet Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust and the enormous destruction and toll it heaped on humanity. What is so sad is that some people even praise you for these distortions.
What? Oh, I thought you were replying to Heistheblasphemer.
Let’s read the real truth about the Catholic Church:
“Throughout the centuries it chose to murder millions of people in a insane attempt to maintain its grip on wealth and power…”
Can we have some facts to back up this powerful statement? Sounds like it comes out of every anti-Catholic playbook which has been published since the Protestant Rebellion of the 16th century. Lots of embellishment, but no substance to back it up.
“it chose to cozy up to the Nazis during World War Two…”
Of course, it is Pope Pius XII getting the blame here. Fact – this pope was Papal Nuncio to Germany for 12 years before he became pope. In 45 public speeches he gave in Germany during that time, he denounced the Nazis in 43 of them. He did not condemn the Nazis loudly during WWII because of the Nazi nature of vengeance. Whenever Catholics denounced the Nazis, other Catholics were either rounded up and killed immediately, or taken to concentration camps to face a slow, tortuous death. 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during WWII, and that’s a horror that should not be forgotten. What is forgotten by many, however, is that more than 6 million Polish Catholics were murdered by the Nazis, and many other Catholics were killed in other countries. Pope Pius XII was responsible for saving, directly or indirectly, the lives of more than 700,000 Jews during the war. Pius’ efforts to help the Jews impressed so much the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that Rabbi Zolli became a convert to Catholicism after the war.
“Heck, it even chose as it’s current leader a former member of the Hitler Youth…”
Anyone who is willing and able to read the news knows that all German male teenagers were forced to join the Hitler youth, and that Pope Benedict XVI deserted the organization at the possible cost of his life.
“It chose to turn a blind eye to hundreds (thousands) of pedophiles in
its ranks…and it chose to blame the victims, shred the evidence, and
play priest pedophile switcheroo between parishes.”
Any knowledgeable Catholic knows that gay men infiltrated the priesthood in large numbers, especially in the 2nd half of the 20th century, in order to try to “change the church” in its teachings about sexuality. To become a bishop, one must first be a priest, and the “pedophile shuffle” was a matter of gay bishops who tried to cover for the gay priests who committed the horrendous crimes of pedophilia.
“Any knowledgeable Catholic knows that gay men infiltrated the priesthood in large numbers”
being gay isn’t the same as being a pedophile.
of course, many of the victims were young men, in their teens….and women…
You might want to review the John Jay report on sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report
Scroll down to profile of victims. You’ll find that 60% of the boys and girls abused were 12 years old or younger.
Lest you think this report is an attempt to smear the Church by revising history the study was commissioned by the Catholic Bishops of America.
Wikipedia is not be believed. Anyone can change info on that sight.
When confronted by the truth, discredit the source. LOL You did read that the Council of Catholic Bishops commissioned the study to be done. I’m quoting directly from the commissions published charts and graphs posted on Wikipedia.
You’re the one that is not to be believed. You’ve already established yourself as a liar and eager to smear entire groups of people in order to deflect responsibility for the horrible acts committed by those you support.
Of course, more disgusting lies.
Your comment is riddled with the same lies and hatred you criticize. That’s hypocrisy.
sorry, fwteagles…
Heistheone is correct…read your history again.
No. “gay priests”? That’s a bold faced lie and it’s a disgusting one. Talk about trying to shift the blame and refusing to accept any responsibility. Again, disgusting.
what are you speaking of? I never said “no gay priests”….how about we get back to the issue at hand….ssm
Schmidlap the topic is not ssm. It’s contraceptive coverage
whoops, sorry….but still the same point…get back to the subject at hand
Schmidlap: There is nothing wrong with defending your faith. You need to understand we are not attacking you or your personal faith in God. What is being scornfully discussed and dismissed as stupid or criminal are those at the top administrative levels of the Catholic Church hierarchy. Not you, not your faith.
The Catholic religion like most religions is a pretty good one. It’s done some good things. It’s done some bad things. One of the worst things all religions usually do is to claim infallibility. Nothing set up by man is infallible. Nothing! Christ started a new religion, a new way of looking at the world, a happier and more loving one than the Old Testament. But the structure of how to carry out that new religion, The Catholic Church, was constructed by man. Being constructed by man it is fallible, prone to error. And when men are in error they should be taken to task.
You do not have to defend your church when the men of the church have committed illegal acts or acted stupidly or started fights with government. Defend your faith. It’s a good faith but don’t defend the men that corrupt your church and dishonor your faith and the Constitution by hiding behind the religious dogma they made up. Remember this: you are not the Church, neither you nor your faith is diminished by criticism of the Church hierarchy when it is wrong.
You’re a riot sally. I have to print this one off. One of the silliest takes on theology I’ve read so far.
Cp: Happy to have been of service.
You said Heistheone is correct and he absolutely is not. You cannot dismiss the the behavior of the numerous pedophiles in the Catholics ranks as gays infultrating the Church. That is a disgusting lie and a smear.
Gotta love Hesi’s revisionist history. LOL
yes, you interpret it to suit your needs
“He did not condemn the Nazis loudly during WWII because of the Nazi nature of vengeance.”
Where’s the faith? Wouldn’t ‘The Jesus’ have his back? Why not speak ‘the truth’ even in the face of danger? Sounds like the part-time Catholics learned from the best…….
He did speak the truth loudly until the Nazis began to take vengeance. Without question, had he continued to speak as forcefully as he had, he would have been responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. His efforts to rescue Jews, Polish Catholics, and others continued unabated throughout the war. Even the Vatican, the Pope’s residence, had hundreds of Jews hidden inside. I don’t know what else the Pope could have done, yet I’m quite certain some of his detractors for political reasons will not stop second-guessing him.
I am a knowledgeable Catholic and do not for one moment believe that large numbers of gay men “infiltrated” the priesthood in some attempt to change the Church’s teachings about sexuality. They just knew a good opportunity to cut loose when it was dangled before them and placed them in positions of social/moral authority that precluded their being questioned about it. For those not motivated by pure self-interest, sexual or otherwise, I like to think they legitimately believed the priestly vocation was service to a greater good and they could contribute some little bit towards making their patch of the world a better place.
Your comment is full of hatred…perhaps you have had too much drinky, uncle?
That’s not drink talking, Schmidlap. That’s recorded history.
no, it is a distorted statement of history to suit your purpose of spreading hatred for the Catholic Church…so very apparent and sad that you can’t stick to the issue at hand.
Nobody hates the Catholic Church. They just don’t like what it does sometimes. Come on, nobody is right all the time and the Church has committed some doozies in 2000 years. Denying contraceptive coverage to non-Catholics is one of them. There are others, but I’m assuming you don’t want to talk about them right now.
you love for the house of satan is bad for your kharma
Every day, in every way my karma trumps your dogma.
I am waiting for the Vatican to issue a statement about the 32,000 year-old plant that is now blooming and setting seed. Should be interesting.
pathetic remarks…how about sticking to the subject at hand
“How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours.”
Wayne Dyer
good one!
Peggy, I’m sure that poor, working women, will be glad to know that you chose they don’t get the pill. Why should the Church decide, whether women who work for them, and are not of their faith, need the pill or not. To me it make more sense to prevent pregnancies, of poor women then to have them wind up on welfare.
If one is opposed to abortion it is incomprehensible that he would oppose birth control. The Catholic Health Association has no problem with President Obama’s requirement of insurers that they cover dollar one of any birth control that an employee CHOOSES to purchase. The Bishops are free to preach the evils of birth control every day at the workplace. Their preaching has convinced fully 1% of Roman Catholic women in this country to go without birth control!
Something more than moral conviction and religious belief is going on when an organization against the termination of a pregnancy for any reason is also against contraception for every reason. This kind of cognitive dissonance is only excusable in the intellectually challenged. Anything else is just intellectual dishonesty.
The only logical way to explain opposition to contraception AND abortion is the Python spoof song: “Every sperm is sacred.” That we take this talk seriously is a sign of how low the media has set the bar for Republicans.
Every sperm is sacred? Actually no. The proscription against “spilling seed” is completely ignored. Imagine what it would be like if the church actually tried to enforce it.
Should the Bishops change their focus to collecting “spilled seed?” They could go door-to-door every morning calling out “Bring out your seed.”
David Estey–Great letter. Identify the problem, offer a solution. We all want America to be great again. Thanks for your clarity of vision.
Elizabeth M. Fauver–“…….may not be the way I would do it but that didn’t mean it was wrong for that individual. Isn’t this where many problems begin, when my way is the right and only way? Please be generous and allow individual differences.”
Amen!
John Clark, the laws are written to protect us all. As far as I know this fellow didn’t commit murder or anything near it. The county jails, for the most part are full to overflowing. Due in large part to all those being held in limbo for probation violations, usually drug use, which accounts for close to 50% of the inmates at any given time. Add to that the number of people who get bail for an initial crime and don’t pay attention to the bail commisioners when they explain their conditions of release. They are just too eager to sign the bail papers and get out of jail.
You may wonder why the jails are full of these probation holds and violators of bail condition inmates. It’s because the courts are back logged so far that they will never see daylight. Add to that and the fact that the tax payers can’t at the present time afford to build bigger jails and don’t want to spend the money neccessary to hire more judges and DA’s office personel to speed the process.
We don’t know what transpired in the decision making of the bail commisioner or the judge in this particular case. Obviously they felt that he didnt pose a risk of flight or danger to the public.
“Secondly, if a woman feels this is unacceptable, she can choose to purchase contraception or work somewhere else.”
Weak argument Peggy. You could argue for slave wages with that same logic. “He can choose to work below minimum wage or work somewhere else.” That’s not how things work. We have a standard and you have to stick to it. There is no choice when it comes to being inadequate — to breaking the law.
The arrogance of her comment (“purchase contraceptives or work somewhere else”) is equaled only by the arrogance of the Church in denying non- Catholic women contraceptive coverage.
The funny part of that comment is that the Church is working day and night to close off all other sources of contraceptives for women through defunding of women’s reproductive health centers and the moral objection law for pharmacists.
The fight over forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives has nothing to do with “women’s rights”. It is about compelling people to purchase government mandated commodities. It wouldn’t be quite as funny if the Catholic Church hadn’t been a big supporter of Obamacare. Keep voting Democrat until we are all slaves to the State. Si, se puede
From the website of the Catholic Charities of Baltimore:
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action PolicyIt is hereby reaffirmed that the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities has adopted a policy of non-discrimination and affirmative action in conformity with applicable federal, state, and local laws, to provide equal and open employment opportunity in all aspects of the employer/employee relationship, including recruiting, hiring, promotion, training, educational reassignments, discipline and termination of employment to all personnel without discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, color, national origin, physical or mental handicap or disability, or any other classification protected by law.Mary Jane LavinSenior Human Resources Administrator
So much for the Catholic Church honoring their vow to “conform to federal, state and local laws to provide equal and open employment opportunity in all aspects of the employer/employee relationship”
Ms. Sonanson – You said “…or work somewhere else.” Have you looked for a job recently?
Get rid of Obama Care and we won’t have the problem, as a matter of fact get Obama out of office
You think President Obama is the problem? You think getting rid of him will get rid of the “problem”? President Obama is not the problem. We women are the problem. Let’s see you get rid of us?
msallyjones: Of course he is the problem. Don’t you remember? In the 8 years before he came into office, we didn’t have to bail out banks, we paid for wars, everything was made in the USA, there was peace, harmony and each and every one of us was rich or just about to be. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that is the way it was. Oh, well, I have to go now, the voices in my head are starting to shout.
LOL, Tell the voices, “hi”!
Tell me that when you are paying over $5. a gallon for gas. Obama Care is one of the biggest fiasco’s there is. I do not see all you Liberals crying as our soldiers are still getting killed. Oh that is right Obama appologized. But, of course you will blame Bush if he gets in again.
For the benefit of the mystified, could you connect the dots from full health insurance coverage to the price of gas to liberal anti war protesters to President Obama’s diplomacy.
That is easy, One Big Obama Mess.
Maybe so, maybe no.
Is not murder of a doctor who performs an abortion the ultimate act of anti-abortion protest? Did not Dr. Tiller’s murderer come from the anti-abortion protest community? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Point to a single anti-abortion protester who has been murdered. You cannot. When you call a lawful medical procedure murder you invite zealots to commit murder to “stop the murderers.”
Peggy, everyone seems to skip over one indisputable fact. The Catholic church is governed by foreigners in a foreign country. The leadership of the church dictate what their subordinates in other countries do.