Catholics under attack now

[Bronx33]

Obama thugs are stepping into secular waters here i am just in awe of this clowns actions the first amendment just got trampled on.

U.S. army/Obama (http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/12347/) prevented Catholic Chaplains from reading bishop's pastoral letter at mass

The U.S. Army prevented Catholic chaplains in the military services from reading a pastoral letter from their bishop at all masses on Sunday, January 29, in violation of the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.



The letter from the Catholic Archbishop for Military Services, Timothy Broglio, called for resistance to the Obama administration’s policy directive that requires most employer health-insurance plans in the United States to include provision for contraceptives – including sterilization and abortifacient drugs. The administration presents this provision as part of a worker’s

[DenverBrit]

Obama thugs are stepping into secular waters here i am just in awe of this clowns actions the first amendment just got trampled on.

U.S. army/Obama (http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/12347/) prevented Catholic Chaplains from reading bishop's pastoral letter at mass

The U.S. Army prevented Catholic chaplains in the military services from reading a pastoral letter from their bishop at all masses on Sunday, January 29, in violation of the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.



The letter from the Catholic Archbishop for Military Services, Timothy Broglio, called for resistance to the Obama administration’s policy directive that requires most employer health-insurance plans in the United States to include provision for contraceptives – including sterilization and abortifacient drugs. The administration presents this provision as part of a worker’s

Secular?? Those are the Catholic church's positions on birth control.

[Bronx33]

read the link (http://www.milarch.org/atf/cf/%7B1AF42501-01D5-4EF8-BA48-4450AC27EF98%7D/statementConscienceProtection26Jan12.pdf)

[DenverBrit]

read the link (http://www.milarch.org/atf/cf/%7B1AF42501-01D5-4EF8-BA48-4450AC27EF98%7D/statementConscienceProtection26Jan12.pdf)

And?? It's still not secular!

[Bronx33]

And?? It's still not secular!


Come on dude you're going to target that one word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state) its how i looked at this attack on the 1st amendment.

[DenverBrit]

Come on dude you're going to target that one word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state) its how i looked at this attack on the 1st amendment.

It's your statement and it distorts what is happening.

If the Catholic Church wants to object, I'm fine with that. But don't claim......

Obama thugs are stepping into secular waters

It's not remotely accurate.

[Bronco Yoda]

If Religion is going to continue to play politics, then they should ALL lose their tax exempt status.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's your statement and it distorts what is happening.

If the Catholic Church wants to object, I'm fine with that. But don't claim......



It's not remotely accurate.

Color me shocked!

Just call Bronx33 "MiniDrama." :D

[Fedaykin]

When the real violation of the Constitution (government supported religion in the military -- which is what Chaplains are) is addressed properly I'll give a ****.

Politically motivated speech is the issue here anyway, not religious speech. Chaplains can and will be slapped down when they attempt to engage in politically motivated speech.

If the religious folks don't want the military giving them orders, they should not be a part of the military -- it's that simple.

[lonestar]

Tough crowd.

To bad come nov you'll be singing a different tune.

Well maybe next Jan. It will take that long to get this hypocrite out of the oval office.

And please do not bring the separation of powers crap up. Because we all know that the Consitution says the government will not establish a state religion. That is all. Nothing about separating the two.

[Fedaykin]

Tough crowd.

To bad come nov you'll be singing a different tune.

Well maybe next Jan. It will take that long to get this hypocrite out of the oval office.

And please do not bring the separation of powers crap up. Because we all know that the Consitution says the government will not establish a state religion. That is all. Nothing about separating the two.

Jefferson would disagree with your interpretation of the 1st -- and frankly he carries just a wee bit more weight than you do.

[lonestar]

Jefferson would disagree with your interpretation of the 1st -- and frankly he carries just a wee bit more weight than you do.

Yep but he is about the only one. And if you read it you would also..

RIF

[Rigs11]

They removed Jefferson from text books in Texas,because he was an evil liburl.

[Fedaykin]

Yep but he is about the only one. And if you read it you would also..

RIF

Literally centuries of case law, supreme court decisions and other precedent that agrees with Jefferson and the concept of separation show that, once again, you're just proving what an idiot you are.

[sirhcyennek81]

If Religion is going to continue to play politics, then they should ALL lose their tax exempt status.


I agree they should. But seperation of church and state works both ways. The government cannot force a church to ignore a core teaching to obey federal laws and guidelines.

Poor move by the feds.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Literally centuries of case law, supreme court decisions and other precedent that agrees with Jefferson and the concept of separation show that, once again, you're just proving what an idiot you are.


And all of it based on a single letter from Jefferson to a church and the ruling of an anti-Catholic federal judge.

I think both sides of that issue are a bit too much gung ho about it. There is a place for religion in the public sphere. Most people in this country are religious to some extent. Their religions shape their political views. There is no harm in aknowledging that fact. There is also no harm in realizing that religion and politics is not a healthy mix for republican government. Religion should have an advisory role, and nothing more in shaping laws for everyone to live under.

I'm thinking Jefferson would have fallen in the middle on the issue. He would agree with the no mixing of the federal government and the endorsement of religion, but would have supported states endorsing religion. And I say that because originally that is how it was intended. Things change though.

That's my opinion, anyway.

:Broncos:

[Fedaykin]

And all of it based on a single letter from Jefferson to a church and the ruling of an anti-Catholic federal judge.


Not at all true. It's actually James Madison (the primary contributor of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as similar documents for the various states) that championed the cause -- a cause he was supported in by Jefferson.

Jefferson just happened to be the guy that coined the actual phrase commonly used to describe the concept. Madison generally phrased it as the "separation between Religion and Government".

For example:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

- James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

Note he's talking not about just the concept, but the fact that it is part of the Constitution (which he should know being the primary contributor).

By the way, the "Ecclesiastical Bodies" mentioned are various sects of the Christian Religion.

[elsid13]

I agree they should. But seperation of church and state works both ways. The government cannot force a church to ignore a core teaching to obey federal laws and guidelines.

Poor move by the feds.

:Broncos:

Let be clear, the Federal Government is not "forcing" the Church to ignore a "core" belief. The ruling simple states that those organization (with or not they are affiliated with the Church) that offer health care, can not have their health care plan limit access to birth control or other medical operations found in majority of health insurance plans. In 28 states today which have similar laws on the book, the Church affiliated organization have complied without a fuss.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let be clear, the Federal Government is not "forcing" the Church to ignore a "core" belief. The ruling simple states that those organization (with or not they are affiliated with the Church) that offer health care, can not have their health care plan limit access to birth control or other medical operations found in majority of health insurance plans. In 28 states today which have similar laws on the book, the Church affiliated organization have complied without a fuss.

You mean the entire premise of the thread turned out to be bullsh*t?

Color me shocked!

:D

[Rohirrim]

One need only travel first hand through a few of the Catholic dominated countries, like Haiti, Mexico and the Philippines and see the massive overpopulation and misery of the poor and then realize they are held down by the church's medieval birth control policies. Then they come to the same conclusion that I do: **** the Catholic Church.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Best discussion on this by far to date:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304319-1


When you have shameful Catholic Obama honks, US Bishops, devout rank and file Catholics, Cafeteria Catholics, Greek Orthodox, non-Catholic Democrats and liberals, and even *gulp* Rick Warren uniting in opposition, you've got a problem.

The President is obstinate and deluded by his own arrogance to admit fault here but he will never consider rescinding this lawless rule before the election because he's solely about politics. He'll talk about extension of deadlines, waiver possibilities, and even posture with more 'my way or the highway' rhetoric to his demented base.

When you can't get Doug Kmiec to vote for you again, you can imagine the backlash from the common Catholics that may think your pants crease is nice but your deliberate poking of them--and their faith--with a stick means holding their nose and voting against you. Like most things, this administration badly misread the tea leaves on this. The fact that it effects mainly Catholics is hardly the point. Nor is the fact that Catholics report using contraception equally as much as non-religious. Dig deeper.

[Rohirrim]

Obama is simply upholding fundamental constitutional principles.

[W*GS]

Easy solution for the Catholic church. Get out of the healthcare business.

[Rohirrim]

Easy solution for the Catholic church. Get out of the healthcare business.

Exactly.

[Spider]

not sure where I stand on this ............

[Tombstone RJ]

Easy solution for the Catholic church. Get out of the healthcare business.

now that the fed gubment is in the health insurance business, they get to dictate to the Catholic Church what it can and can't do (the Catholic church does not want to administer contraceptives). Next thing you know the fed gubment will be telling the Catholic Church it has to provide abortions too.

This is why the BO is a joke. Forget about whether you agree with the Catholic Church or not, that is beside the point. This is the fed gov overstepping its bounds and forcing its will onto religion.

Anyone who doesn't see the possible long term ramifications of this is just kidding themselves.

[elsid13]

now that the fed gubment is in the health insurance business, they get to dictate to the Catholic Church what it can and can't do (the Catholic church does not want to administer contraceptives). Next thing you know the fed gubment will be telling the Catholic Church it has to provide abortions too.

This is why the BO is a joke. Forget about whether you agree with the Catholic Church or not, that is beside the point. This is the fed gov overstepping its bounds and forcing its will onto religion.

Anyone who doesn't see the possible long term ramifications of this is just kidding themselves.

Lets try this again, this ruling doesn't state that Church sponsored hospital or clinic needs to provide the services. It state if that those place offer health plans to their employees then individual should have the ability to seek those options if they want to somewhere else. So if a woman want prescription for birth control pills, she can see her doctor at other place and health plan will cover them.

[Tombstone RJ]

Lets try this again, this ruling doesn't state that Church sponsored hospital or clinic needs to provide the services. It state if that those place offer health plans to their employees then individual should have the ability to seek those options if they want to somewhere else. So if a woman want prescription for birth control pills, she can see her doctor at other place and health plan will cover them.

yah, I know. It's telling the Catholic Church to provide the option for contraceptives. You're splitting hairs, it's the principle behind the enforcement that matters. Again, you can disagree with the Catholic Church all you want but that doesn't change the fact that BO's administration is forcing this onto their church.

[W*GS]

This is the fed gov overstepping its bounds and forcing its will onto religion.

So, if a state wants to impose sharia law, you'd be utterly cool with that.

[Tombstone RJ]

So, if a state wants to impose sharia law, you'd be utterly cool with that.

wtf?

no, I want separation of church and state.

[cutthemdown]

If Religion is going to continue to play politics, then they should ALL lose their tax exempt status.

Should the NAACP lose its status? Many many tax exempt entities lobby politics, talk to the members about issues.

Do you want to tax the VFW's, lol the ones by my place do blues jams, some good players, i drop in sometimes....they have events where speakers talk to the members about local politics and how they feel the issues effect them.

You're a ****ing idiot. What does politics have to do with being non profit tax exempt....****ing nothing except you are part of the attack on religion. Obama is pandering to you.....you probably love it. Go get them stupid Christians.......It's all Congress fault we need to get rid of them....****ing scary stuff if you think about it.

[cutthemdown]

So, if a state wants to impose sharia law, you'd be utterly cool with that.

What does that have to do with if a religious hospital that is against abortion or birth control, is forced to provide that?

[elsid13]

What does that have to do with if a religious hospital that is against abortion or birth control, is forced to provide that?

Who is forcing religious hospital to perform abortions????

[Missouribronc]

Easy solution for the Catholic church. Get out of the healthcare business.

A terribly inaccurate and worthless argument.

You are saying, though I don't think you understand it, that the Catholic religion abolish all non-profit organizations, schools, universities and hospitals with this ill-conceived mandate. They are employers, and therefore are required to offer this health care coverage.

I think you don't understand the basics of this mandate. Any EMPLOYER. That means a anyone who employs someone is subject to the legislation.

If this were to take effect, a Catholic school, who is fundamentally opposed to the things within the legislation based on religious beliefs, would be required to offer health care coverage with aspects that are against their faith. Required. They lose the choice to offer them. That goes against everything fundamental right this country is built on.

[sirhcyennek81]

Who is forcing religious hospital to perform abortions????


The federal government. If the Church is an employer, and the employee chooses to have an abortion, the health coverage they receive from that employer would pay for that abortion...

Which basically means a Church is paying for an abortion, which violates a teaching of the church. If they deny paying for it, they get sued and lose, plus get blasted for "attacking women's health". That is the government forcing a religion into a position to violate a belief.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

A terribly inaccurate and worthless argument.

You are saying, though I don't think you understand it, that the Catholic religion abolish all non-profit organizations, schools, universities and hospitals with this ill-conceived mandate. They are employers, and therefore are required to offer this health care coverage.

I think you don't understand the basics of this mandate. Any EMPLOYER. That means a anyone who employs someone is subject to the legislation.

If this were to take effect, a Catholic school, who is fundamentally opposed to the things within the legislation based on religious beliefs, would be required to offer health care coverage with aspects that are against their faith. Required. They lose the choice to offer them. That goes against everything fundamental right this country is built on.


I am wondering how many communities have social services and hospitals because of churches, synagogues or mosques.

:Broncos:

[Missouribronc]

I am wondering how many communities have social services and hospitals because of churches, synagogues or mosques.

:Broncos:

St. Jude's, one of the best children's medical operations in the country would be FORCED to offer health care to employees with aspects they don't fundamentally believe in.

It's ridiculous.

It could feasibly mean St. Jude's would simply cease to exist.

[sirhcyennek81]

St. Jude's, one of the best children's medical operations in the country would be FORCED to offer health care to employees with aspects they don't fundamentally believe in.

It's ridiculous.

It could feasibly mean St. Jude's would simply cease to exist.


The nearest hospital to me is St Thomas More in Canon City. It closes, the next nearest one is St Mary Corwin in Pueblo...after that is the city hospital in Colorado Springs.

:Broncos:

[Fedaykin]

St. Jude's, one of the best children's medical operations in the country would be FORCED to offer health care to employees with aspects they don't fundamentally believe in.

It's ridiculous.

It could feasibly mean St. Jude's would simply cease to exist.

St. Jude's isn't a religious organization =P

It just has a religious name.

[Fedaykin]

Why should an organization with a secular purpose that happens to be sponsored by a religious organization get special treatment under the law?

[Fedaykin]

The federal government. If the Church is an employer, and the employee chooses to have an abortion, the health coverage they receive from that employer would pay for that abortion...

Which basically means a Church is paying for an abortion, which violates a teaching of the church. If they deny paying for it, they get sued and lose, plus get blasted for "attacking women's health". That is the government forcing a religion into a position to violate a belief.

:Broncos:

Many faith based organizations are compelled to fund things they object to. For example, many religious (and non-religious) groups have a strict code of non-violence, yet are still taxed and a significant portion of that tax money goes to fund violence (military, police, etc.). They get a personal exemption from actually serving, but they still have to pay taxes.

Why should this situation be different?

[sirhcyennek81]

Why should an organization with a secular purpose that happens to be sponsored by a religious organization get special treatment under the law?


You answered your own question.

"Sponsored by a religious organization".

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Many faith based organizations are compelled to fund things they object to. For example, many religious (and non-religious) groups have a strict code of non-violence, yet are still taxed and a significant portion of that tax money goes to fund violence (military, police, etc.). They get a personal exemption from actually serving, but they still have to pay taxes.

Why should this situation be different?


Why should a church pay for their employees to engage in practices the church itself is against?

:Broncos:

[Fedaykin]

Why should a church pay for their employees to engage in practices the church itself is against?

:Broncos:

Same reason any other group should have to pay for things they are personally against.

[Fedaykin]

You answered your own question.

"Sponsored by a religious organization".

:Broncos:

Being sponsored by a religious organization is not a pass to be exempt from all laws.

[Fedaykin]

Should an employer that is a Jehova's Witness be permitted to only provide health coverage to its employee that doesn't cover blood transfusions?

[Spider]

Should an employer that is a Jehova's Witness be permitted to only provide health coverage to its employee that doesn't cover blood transfusions?

It is different when you start adding different religions beliefs , I still dont know where I stand , but what if the American Muslims start wanting exemptions for Muslim medical beliefs ? For example depression , there is a hard line that they dont need meds just the Qur'an and women receive less treatment , would that be ok ?

[ant1999e]

A terribly inaccurate and worthless argument.

You are saying, though I don't think you understand it, that the Catholic religion abolish all non-profit organizations, schools, universities and hospitals with this ill-conceived mandate. They are employers, and therefore are required to offer this health care coverage.

I think you don't understand the basics of this mandate. Any EMPLOYER. That means a anyone who employs someone is subject to the legislation.

If this were to take effect, a Catholic school, who is fundamentally opposed to the things within the legislation based on religious beliefs, would be required to offer health care coverage with aspects that are against their faith. Required. They lose the choice to offer them. That goes against everything fundamental right this country is built on.

These anti-religion dingbats would cut off their nose to spite their face.

[cutthemdown]

This issue a real winner for the repubs. You don't gain votes this way. Plenty of Democrats that are Catholics, indies also. This probably gives the eventual Repub nominee a pretty good commercial. It bashes healthcare and Obamas assault on religion all in one. Even Dems were pleading with Obama to not do this. Not sure why he thinks this is a good move....it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[cutthemdown]

Should an employer that is a Jehova's Witness be permitted to only provide health coverage to its employee that doesn't cover blood transfusions?

Can you name one hospital ran by Jehova Witness lol! Cmon! This is about the freedoms we have gave the Christian church since for how long? If someone needs that in their healthcare plan don't work for a Catholic hospital. At least the hire people of all faiths. What do you want for them to not hire non catholics?

[Fedaykin]

Can you name one hospital ran by Jehova Witness lol! Cmon! This is about the freedoms we have gave the Christian church since for how long? If someone needs that in their healthcare plan don't work for a Catholic hospital. At least the hire people of all faiths. What do you want for them to not hire non catholics?

Don't avoid he question.

[cutthemdown]

Don't avoid he question.

No I will concede that if you wanted to make it extreme, to every religion, then it won't hold water you win. You are 100% correct that religion will not, and can't survive if the govt won't protect it. If you let people clump Christians with crazy religions so you can attack their beliefs then you will win and stomp it out.

That is why we have to vote Obama out of office. Because protecting religious freedom is important. Good politics though for the right and the repubs, this issue has winner all over it. Lot's of people still believe in religious freedom and their are a ton of Catholics.

[Bronco Yoda]

No I will concede that if you wanted to make it extreme, to every religion, then it won't hold water you win.

So your position is that the Catholic corporation should be afforded special privileges not afforded to other religions?

You are 100% correct that religion will not, and can't survive if the govt won't protect it.

This health bill does not affect the church only it's other activities that are not religion specific (hospitals, schools, charities, etc). So are you saying then that the Catholic church won't survive as just a church without all the other stuff? Really?

If you let people clump Christians with crazy religions so you can attack their beliefs then you will win and stomp it out.

So, the Catholics are the normal ones and all others are Crazy? This is your argument???????Hilarious!

That is why we have to vote Obama out of office. Because protecting religious freedom is important.

More important that INDIVIDUAL freedom? You're championing the side of an institution..... essentially one of the worlds oldest and most powerful corporations over individuals rights to certain health care.

The only reason you find it important is because the pulpit says so... start thinking for yourself.

Good politics though for the right and the repubs, this issue has winner all over it. Lot's of people still believe in religious freedom and their are a ton of Catholics.

The Catholic church is good at politics. It was built by it and for it from the start. It's the oldest crime syndicate in the world. Learn your world history so you won't be so naive.


.

[cutthemdown]

People have a choice to work where they want. Saying this is about individual freedom, over Churches freedom is BS. People can still get contraception, and use it. Working at a Catholic church does not mean you can't use an IUD, or birth control pills. It just means the health plan wont pay for it. This isn't about freedom to do something, this about who has to pay for it.

But...forcing a Catholic hospital to pay for something that goes against what they believe is a no choice situation for them. The person working at said hospital could work somewhere else, freedom to choose intact.

Since when does the Constitution say every woman has a right for healthcare to pay for birth control? That is absurd.

It does say to protect religious freedoms though.

Also I never said Catholics are great, and all other religions are crazy. A poster said should a Jehova witness who is a boss have the right to say no healthcare for anyone, its against my religion.

So I said taking it that far, on the tenets of a crazy religion, sort of works as an argument, but IMO falls short of the spirit of what we are trying to say about religion and the constitution, and what a hospital, or school, ran but a religion should or shouldnt have to do.

Also I want to say I am not religious at all, don't go to church, just feel that Obama once again trouncing the American way of doing things. If he succeeds he will swing the court 5-4 in his advantage and trample things like the right to bear arms.

[Spider]

This issue a real winner for the repubs. You don't gain votes this way. Plenty of Democrats that are Catholics, indies also. This probably gives the eventual Repub nominee a pretty good commercial. It bashes healthcare and Obamas assault on religion all in one. Even Dems were pleading with Obama to not do this. Not sure why he thinks this is a good move....it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Hilarious! Like the pipe line was a real winner for the bedwetters ? I got to reading up on this , went back through this thread , busted a gut about how this will make Catholics go out of business .......
Basically what you guys are arguing is ,Catholics deserve special treatment , cause when they are not molesting kids , they are not half bad people ......And it wins for republicans :rofl: .............

[barryr]

The liberals continue to believe the BS of "freedom from religion" not "of" and show they would rather play politics than protecting people's rights for their religion and how they want to practice it. Health insurance is not a right and no distortions of Thomas Jefferson is going to help disprove that.

[Spider]

People have a choice to work where they want. Saying this is about individual freedom, over Churches freedom is BS. People can still get contraception, and use it. Working at a Catholic church does not mean you can't use an IUD, or birth control pills. It just means the health plan wont pay for it. This isn't about freedom to do something, this about who has to pay for it.

But...forcing a Catholic hospital to pay for something that goes against what they believe is a no choice situation for them. The person working at said hospital could work somewhere else, freedom to choose intact.

Since when does the Constitution say every woman has a right for healthcare to pay for birth control? That is absurd.

It does say to protect religious freedoms though.

Also I never said Catholics are great, and all other religions are crazy. A poster said should a Jehova witness who is a boss have the right to say no healthcare for anyone, its against my religion.

So I said taking it that far, on the tenets of a crazy religion, sort of works as an argument, but IMO falls short of the spirit of what we are trying to say about religion and the constitution, and what a hospital, or school, ran but a religion should or shouldnt have to do.

Also I want to say I am not religious at all, don't go to church, just feel that Obama once again trouncing the American way of doing things. If he succeeds he will swing the court 5-4 in his advantage and trample things like the right to bear arms.

this is a joke right ? ......... Here is what you are saying , Look other health insurance companies , we the people feel the Catholics shouldnt have to cover this ,Cause lets be honets , when they are not molesting kids or playing hide the pedo priest , they are not half bad people ....... Besides we dont want to burn in hell cause some catholic church had to pay for some mom bombs ( aka the pill)
Look there are some things that are mandated Healthcare coverages mandate if they wan in the game , they gotta play by the rules , The catholic church is big enough to be self insured

[Smiling Assassin27]

'Compromise' is forthcoming. Here's what it is:

With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. …
White House officials have discussed the state law in Hawaii, where religious groups are allowed to opt out of coverage that includes birth control, as long as employees are given information whether such coverage can be obtained. But this accommodation would not go that far.
This announcement would not go that far. Sources say it will involve health insurance companies helping to provide the coverage, since it’s actually cheaper for these companies to offer the coverage than to not do so, because of unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications.


These morons STILL don't get it. It's not about who bears the cost of the so-called 'preventive medicine', it's that the preventive medicine is morally incompatible with tenets of certain faiths. Circumventing who pays for the coverage is no compromise at all, since the policies will still contain the immoral coverages.

More importantly, this is--to use our moron president's words--a teaching moment. The fact that this rule was promulgated at all tells us that this administration has no regard for people of faith or their beliefs. The fact that they could not anticipate the blowback on this shows just how out of touch with us that our president is and how he sees the Constitution as an undue limitation on him rather than a governing document. This new rule is no improvement and anything short of eradicating the rule is not acceptable.

Still, knowing the spineless population of Catholic Bishops, itw ill be interesting to see how many acquiesce/puss out.

[Rohirrim]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today - and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally-but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
http://www.truth-out.org/when-clint-eastwood-mocks-you-youre-officially-screwed/1328840046

/THREAD

[BroncoInferno]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today - and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally-but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
http://www.truth-out.org/when-clint-eastwood-mocks-you-youre-officially-screwed/1328840046

/THREAD

Yep. SmilingAss owned yet again. The sad thing is that dope actually thinks he's rational and clever Hilarious!

[Spider]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today - and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally-but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
http://www.truth-out.org/when-clint-eastwood-mocks-you-youre-officially-screwed/1328840046

/THREAD
but the catholics will go out of business , who will molest the alter boys if that happens ? Think of the childrens

[ant1999e]

but the catholics will go out of business , who will molest the alter boys if that happens ? Think of the childrens

Why do you feel the need to be ignorant and generalize all Catholics as child molesters? When you do this your argument and credibility go out the window.

[alkemical]

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSblSwIF6xXu-7atdZQslK8naz12wJV2ohr6-Id2bIrsq3elvTa

[Spider]

Why do you feel the need to be ignorant and generalize all Catholics as child molesters? When you do this your argument and credibility go out the window.

my bad , I forgot it was only 1 or 2 priest ........ But they was relocated and problem solved ....... I really need to quit harping on it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why do you feel the need to be ignorant and generalize all Catholics as child molesters? When you do this your argument and credibility go out the window.

Why do you feel the need to flip the script and pretend the Church isn't 100% responsible for creating the public perception that it's a haven for kiddie diddlers?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today - and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally-but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
http://www.truth-out.org/when-clint-eastwood-mocks-you-youre-officially-screwed/1328840046

/THREAD

Oooops! Ha!

[BroncoLifer]

The fact that they could not anticipate the blowback on this shows just how out of touch with us that our president is and how he sees the Constitution as an undue limitation on him rather than a governing document.

Yep.

There might be a silver lining in this, though. Hopefully, among the people paying attention and figuring this out for themselves is one Anthony Kennedy.

[BroncoLifer]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today - and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally-but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
http://www.truth-out.org/when-clint-eastwood-mocks-you-youre-officially-screwed/1328840046

/THREAD

Who needs that pesky 1st Amendment? We have the EEOC!!

[ant1999e]

Why do you feel the need to flip the script and pretend the Church isn't 100% responsible for creating the public perception that it's a haven for kiddie diddlers?

I'm not flipping anything. They are 100% responsible for the sick actions of the priests and their own non actions to fix and prevent it. I'm refering to Catholics as a whole. We're all not child molesters.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I'm not flipping anything. They are 100% responsible for the sick actions of the priests and their own non actions to fix and prevent it. I'm refering to Catholics as a whole. We're all not child molesters.

LABF is just doing the standard 'deflect attention from the issue in any way possible' routine. He knows the sex abuse scandal is irrelevant here, we all do. No need to explain it in this thread cuz it just ain't relevant.

[Rohirrim]

Who needs that pesky 1st Amendment? We have the EEOC!!

This rule protects individuals, not organizations. Employees, not employers. If some church doesn't want to play by the same rules that every other hospital has to play by, they have every right to sell their hospitals and use the money elsewhere, say to pay off molestation lawsuits, for instance.

What if your employer doesn't believe in blood transfusions? Can he just cross that off the list?

[Smiling Assassin27]

'Compromise' is forthcoming. Here's what it is:



These morons STILL don't get it. It's not about who bears the cost of the so-called 'preventive medicine', it's that the preventive medicine is morally incompatible with tenets of certain faiths. Circumventing who pays for the coverage is no compromise at all, since the policies will still contain the immoral coverages.

More importantly, this is--to use our moron president's words--a teaching moment. The fact that this rule was promulgated at all tells us that this administration has no regard for people of faith or their beliefs. The fact that they could not anticipate the blowback on this shows just how out of touch with us that our president is and how he sees the Constitution as an undue limitation on him rather than a governing document. This new rule is no improvement and anything short of eradicating the rule is not acceptable.

Still, knowing the spineless population of Catholic Bishops, itw ill be interesting to see how many acquiesce/puss out.

Hey, look at that, wanna-be pope Sister Carol Keehan and her Catholic Health Association bought it hook, line, and sinker. Ah, material complicity in fostering grave sin just ain't what it used to be. :~ohyah!:

[Spider]

This rule protects individuals, not organizations. Employees, not employers. If some church doesn't want to play by the same rules that every other hospital has to play by, they have every right to sell their hospitals and use the money elsewhere, say to pay off molestation lawsuits, for instance.

What if your employer doesn't believe in blood transfusions? Can he just cross that off the list?

shhhhhhhhhhhhh not now he is on a roll :~ohyah!:

[BroncoLifer]

This rule protects individuals, not organizations. Employees, not employers. If some church doesn't want to play by the same rules that every other hospital has to play by, they have every right to sell their hospitals and use the money elsewhere, say to pay off molestation lawsuits, for instance.

What if your employer doesn't believe in blood transfusions? Can he just cross that off the list?

Is he a real, genuine Church wherein anti-blood transfusionism is a core part of his theology? If so, you should get a new employer.

This is an issue where reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply in real life. Here, there is a real conflict between a state interest and religious freedom. Religious freedom isn't important to some people -- to others, it's everything. The Catholic Church didn't decide to oppose this proposed regulation just for fun. It goes to the heart of its doctrine.

Again, the 1st Amendment trumps whatever motivation is behind any EEOC ruling.

p.s. I'm not religious myself, so that's not my personal motivation. But I respect those who are and their existence doesn't bug me.

[Tombstone RJ]

This rule protects individuals, not organizations. Employees, not employers. If some church doesn't want to play by the same rules that every other hospital has to play by, they have every right to sell their hospitals and use the money elsewhere, say to pay off molestation lawsuits, for instance.

What if your employer doesn't believe in blood transfusions? Can he just cross that off the list?

you're really lost on this one aren't you?

[Rohirrim]

Is he a real, genuine Church wherein anti-blood transfusionism is a core part of his theology? If so, you should get a new employer.

This is an issue where reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply in real life. Here, there is a real conflict between a state interest and religious freedom. Religious freedom isn't important to some people -- to others, it's everything. The Catholic Church didn't decide to oppose this proposed regulation just for fun. It goes to the heart of its doctrine.

Again, the 1st Amendment trumps whatever motivation is behind any EEOC ruling.

p.s. I'm not religious myself, so that's not my personal motivation. But I respect those who are and their existence doesn't bug me.

If there is one thing that is clear around the world, the Catholic Church's proscriptions on birth control bring nothing but poverty, misery and starvation to the third world. Look at Haiti - 80% Catholic. There's a shining example of that policy.

**** them and **** their medieval mind-set. They can do whatever they want in their own church. Fine. But we are a secular, science and reason based, forward thinking society. Why should we allow these medieval anchors to drag us down? If their dogma is so important to them, let them get out of the health care business. Otherwise, if they are going to have more than fifteen employees and offer preventative health care and medicines to those employees, then they are not going to proscribe contraception.

Birth control, for those who haven't noticed, is one of the great boons of modern medicine.

[cutthemdown]

Ok Obama caving on this issue. Why? Because like I said it was a total political loser for him. They crunched the numbers and probably felt it would lose him some swing states. Sure it would help him in CA and NY, but he doesn't need help there. I was surprised he was pushing this because it really was such a loser issue for him.

So Obama caves, why? because even democrats hated this attack on the Constitution.

Now he will force healthcare insurance to cover it by themselves.

[Spider]

Ok Obama caving on this issue. Why? Because like I said it was a total political loser for him. They crunched the numbers and probably felt it would lose him some swing states. Sure it would help him in CA and NY, but he doesn't need help there. I was surprised he was pushing this because it really was such a loser issue for him.

So Obama caves, why? because even democrats hated this attack on the Constitution.

Now he will force healthcare insurance to cover it by themselves.

Yeah got to let the Child molesters up hold their beliefs at all cost thats for sure .....

[Smiling Assassin27]

Ok Obama caving on this issue. Why? Because like I said it was a total political loser for him. They crunched the numbers and probably felt it would lose him some swing states. Sure it would help him in CA and NY, but he doesn't need help there. I was surprised he was pushing this because it really was such a loser issue for him.

So Obama caves, why? because even democrats hated this attack on the Constitution.

Now he will force healthcare insurance to cover it by themselves.


Here's the problem. He didn't cave, he just manipulated some accounting methods and served it back to the American people like we're too stupid to see what he did. If you're not insulted by this move, you ain't paying attention.

[Rohirrim]

Ok Obama caving on this issue. Why? Because like I said it was a total political loser for him. They crunched the numbers and probably felt it would lose him some swing states. Sure it would help him in CA and NY, but he doesn't need help there. I was surprised he was pushing this because it really was such a loser issue for him.

So Obama caves, why? because even democrats hated this attack on the Constitution.

Now he will force healthcare insurance to cover it by themselves.

I get the feeling Sebelius launched this without running it through the political operatives in the WH, and now Obama, as usual, rather than stand on the principle, will back it off for political gain. If it gets too nasty, Sebelius will probably have to fall on the sword.

[Smiling Assassin27]

you're really lost on this one aren't you?

why bother? it's not that he's blind, it's just that he won't see. but plugging your ears and shutting your eyes tightly only works until they come for you too.

[Bronco Yoda]

Ok Obama caving on this issue. Why? Because like I said it was a total political loser for him. They crunched the numbers and probably felt it would lose him some swing states. Sure it would help him in CA and NY, but he doesn't need help there. I was surprised he was pushing this because it really was such a loser issue for him.

So Obama caves, why? because even democrats hated this attack on the Constitution.

Now he will force healthcare insurance to cover it by themselves.


Obama is spineless. That is why he caves on everything.

And yes, it IS a political loser. I brought this whole thing up last week on the political thread on the front page.

[Bronco Yoda]

And just to educate some here. The 'Pill' isn't just used for contraception. Half the woman who get prescribed this is for MEDICAL reasons. It regulates hormones, ministration, acne, etc...etc...etc...

Why not just outlaw tightly-whities. They are proven to decrease sperm count. And I've never heard TW's prescribed for medical reasons either.

[Tombstone RJ]

And just to educate some here. The 'Pill' isn't just used for contraception. Half the woman who get prescribed this is for MEDICAL reasons. It regulates hormones, ministration, acne, etc...etc...etc...

Why not just outlaw tightly-whities. They are proven to decrease sperm count. And I've never heard TW's prescribed for medical reasons either.

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the pill also being associated with breast cancer? That is, taking the pill leads to a better chance of getting breat cancer?

I could be wrong about this...

[Bronco Yoda]

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the pill also being associated with breast cancer? That is, taking the pill leads to a better chance of getting breat cancer?

I could be wrong about this...

Yes, not just breast cancer but prostate cancer also. They have found a link between women taking the oral contraceptive pill and men diagnosed with prostate cancer. One of these nasty side affect from ALL medications that are finding their way back into our water supply worldwide.

See cut.... I just made an intelligent argument for you. Perhaps you should go with an angle such as this. Better than... ""all other religions are crazy and Catholics deserve special treatment because their dogma has become so 'Americana'.... so there...nanny-nanny-boo-boo." :giggle:

[Smiling Assassin27]

And just to educate some here. The 'Pill' isn't just used for contraception. Half the woman who get prescribed this is for MEDICAL reasons. It regulates hormones, ministration, acne, etc...etc...etc...

Why not just outlaw tightly-whities. They are proven to decrease sperm count. And I've never heard TW's prescribed for medical reasons either.

First of all, contraception is not medically NECESSARY, so let's get that out of the way. In a minute number of cases, they are prescribed as medically necessary to treat a condition.

Second, I know of no Catholic policies that won't make an exception when it IS medically necessary, with regard to covering it, because the Church teaches that the use of artificial contraception is allowed in those cases.

[Smiling Assassin27]

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the pill also being associated with breast cancer? That is, taking the pill leads to a better chance of getting breat cancer?

I could be wrong about this...

http://www.ditchthepill.org/

[Bronco Yoda]

First of all, contraception is not medically NECESSARY, so let's get that out of the way. In a minute number of cases, they are prescribed as medically necessary to treat a condition.

Second, I know of no Catholic policies that won't make an exception when it IS medically necessary, with regard to covering it, because the Church teaches that the use of artificial contraception is allowed in those cases.

First of all, my wife had a medical condition that also aggravated a heart condition that was effectively treated with the "Pill" believe it or not. And her case along with all the other medical scenarios out there are not a 'minute number.

So you are once again full of ****. Do you just make this **** up or are you reading this somewhere?

[Bronco Yoda]

I'm not flipping anything. They are 100% responsible for the sick actions of the priests and their own non actions to fix and prevent it. I'm refering to Catholics as a whole. We're all not child molesters.

Would it be fair to say that those that tithe... in a round about way SPONSOR said molesters? :ouwknow:

What would the commercial look like?

:poke:

[Odysseus]

Let be clear, the Federal Government is not "forcing" the Church to ignore a "core" belief. The ruling simple states that those organization (with or not they are affiliated with the Church) that offer health care, can not have their health care plan limit access to birth control or other medical operations found in majority of health insurance plans. In 28 states today which have similar laws on the book, the Church affiliated organization have complied without a fuss.

+1

[Spider]

First of all, contraception is not medically NECESSARY, so let's get that out of the way. In a minute number of cases, they are prescribed as medically necessary to treat a condition.

Second, I know of no Catholic policies that won't make an exception when it IS medically necessary, with regard to covering it, because the Church teaches that the use of artificial contraception is allowed in those cases.

Take it you are not familial with women ..........Anything , I mean anything that helps curb PMS is medically needed ......I have received some legendary ass kickings during this time of month for asking Honey are you retaining water you look a little pudgy

[Spider]

First of all, my wife had a medical condition that also aggravated a heart condition that was effectively treated with the "Pill" believe it or not. And her case along with all the other medical scenarios out there are not a 'minute number.

So you are once again full of ****. Do you just make this **** up or are you reading this somewhere?

Yeah , the pill has many uses medically , 1 is to control a heavy period with cramping

[Bronco Yoda]

Amen brother Spider. .... or is that 'Amun' brother Spider! (oops...did I go there?)

Preach on!

Oh to be a fly on the wall when someday life's realities smacks some of these virgins right upside the face.

[Spider]

Amen brother Spider. .... or is that Amun! (oops...did I go there?)

Preach on!

Oh to be a fly on the wall when someday life's realities smacks some of these virgins right upside the face.

^5

[cutthemdown]

Here's the problem. He didn't cave, he just manipulated some accounting methods and served it back to the American people like we're too stupid to see what he did. If you're not insulted by this move, you ain't paying attention.

Oh i agree 100%. It's another example of his blind do anything to get his way mentality. Basically healthcare costs go up for everyone because Obama doesn't think people should pay for their own birth control. My observations were more to show how quickly Obama learned the Catholics still have some power in this country.

And too spider I have knows hundreds of Catholics and can't remember any of them getting in trouble.

Should we group you with truckers. Because truckers do a ton of illegal things and rape hookers and hitchhikers all the time. I know 2 truckers. 1 is a good man, the other is in prison for beating his wife too many times. Should you be grouped with him based on your profession? or is it only religion you do that on?

I do agree that it's strange so many teachers, boy scout leaders, and priests got busted for screwing kids, but i don't go around saying that means the institutions themselves are bad.

Hell what about the group of people that are not relgious. Do we take the crimes they commit and say look this is what non religious people do? All mean should be judged by their actions alone, not those of their religion, profession, or anything.

[cutthemdown]

Fact is Obama just a pure politician. He even said he made votes in the Senate not caring about what it meant for the country. He could care less what gets passes, he only cares about being President, throwing parties. He didn't care about the pipeline either. It wasn't until a big environmental group got to protesting, got organized, that he decided to cave on that.

Repubs don't have anyone who makes me feel like i can trust what they say either. I will still vote any repub over Obama, but whoever wins, lets hope in 4 more yrs we get some real mean of honor to run for President. Someone with a moral center we can predict and count on.

[Rohirrim]

Fact is Obama just a pure politician. He even said he made votes in the Senate not caring about what it meant for the country. He could care less what gets passes, he only cares about being President, throwing parties. He didn't care about the pipeline either. It wasn't until a big environmental group got to protesting, got organized, that he decided to cave on that.

Repubs don't have anyone who makes me feel like i can trust what they say either. I will still vote any repub over Obama, but whoever wins, lets hope in 4 more yrs we get some real mean of honor to run for President. Someone with a moral center we can predict and count on.

I think blowing that horn has deoxygenated your brain. ;D

[Spider]

Oh i agree 100%. It's another example of his blind do anything to get his way mentality. Basically healthcare costs go up for everyone because Obama doesn't think people should pay for their own birth control. My observations were more to show how quickly Obama learned the Catholics still have some power in this country.

And too spider I have knows hundreds of Catholics and can't remember any of them getting in trouble.

Should we group you with truckers. Because truckers do a ton of illegal things and rape hookers and hitchhikers all the time. I know 2 truckers. 1 is a good man, the other is in prison for beating his wife too many times. Should you be grouped with him based on your profession? or is it only religion you do that on?

I do agree that it's strange so many teachers, boy scout leaders, and priests got busted for screwing kids, but i don't go around saying that means the institutions themselves are bad.

Hell what about the group of people that are not relgious. Do we take the crimes they commit and say look this is what non religious people do? All mean should be judged by their actions alone, not those of their religion, profession, or anything.

so what are you saying ?

[cutthemdown]

I think blowing that horn has deoxygenated your brain. ;D

Maybe so, maybe so. Still nothing I said in that post not true. He admitted he voted against the debt ceiling raise because as a Senator he didn't often think about what is best for the country. But now that he is President he understands. Also he does just cave once he gets any pressure from his own side. The pressured him on Keystone he caved. When Dems who are catholics got pissed over this he caved. Trust me it wasn't Newt Gingrich being pissed that did it.

He had some balls ordering the Bin Laden strike when apparently most of his admin said to wait. IMO that was also a sign though his decision making is all over the place, you never know what you are going to get. He's like the box of chocolate in forrest gump.

[cutthemdown]

so what are you saying ?

I'm saying truckers are all on strung out on meth alley. Speed with a disregard for safety on the roads. Pollute the ****ing air. And you are one of them so **** off. :)

[Spider]

I'm saying truckers are all on strung out on meth alley. Speed with a disregard for safety on the roads. Pollute the ****ing air. And you are one of them so **** off. :)
just come out with it already sop beating around the bush

[Bronco Yoda]

They're all self serving. The sooner you learn this and stop getting distracted by religious dogma,party affiliation, media whores....the better off you'll be. You just seem really confused by everything.


The only choice we have is to try and figure out who will at least throw us some scraps while they're serving themselves and their rich and powerful puppet masters. Unfortunately that's where we're at right now.

[cutthemdown]

just come out with it already sop beating around the bush

Oh man blaming Bush again lol! I'm not even religious, i do find it disturbing how the Catholics tried to cover it up. I actually have a close friend whose mother was part of the settlement with LA diocese so it hit home back when i heard about that. I just think maybe an exception should be made for Catholic run hospitals. I doubt they have anything to do with the molestation. They do good work and do hire all faiths, so its not like they are bigots.

I think religious people do a lot of good, and I don't have a problem giving them a few exceptions.

Now I have said before that if a church is a megachurch, and can afford to spend money on politics, then they should have to pay property tax. You could even say churches over a certain size have to pay something in property tax. I'm not mr total free ride for anyone.

Also one guy put what if the pill is needed to control a woman's period etc etc. That one is a tough one i would say that should be covered, which would open a stupid loophole.

So for sure I see both sides to it. Obama was smart to cave on it because doing so probably doesn't cost him any votes. Not doing so probably would have cost him a million or so, maybe even more.

[cutthemdown]

They're all self serving. The sooner you learn this and stop getting distracted by religious dogma,party affiliation, media whores....the better off you'll be. You just seem really confused by everything.


The only choice we have is to try and figure out who will at least throw us some scraps while they're serving themselves and their rich and powerful puppet masters. Unfortunately that's where we're at right now.

I doubt that. It would only take about half of the govt to be total selfish self serving ****twads to ruin the whole thing. Maybe even only 30%.

Think about your working place, then make half the people like the ones you described, and then guess how profitable it will be.

We need to get to the point were an honest democrat better then a dishonest repub. And vice versa. If we do that I think we will be ok.

[Spider]

Oh man blaming Bush again lol! I'm not even religious, i do find it disturbing how the Catholics tried to cover it up. I actually have a close friend whose mother was part of the settlement with LA diocese so it hit home back when i heard about that. I just think maybe an exception should be made for Catholic run hospitals. I doubt they have anything to do with the molestation. They do good work and do hire all faiths, so its not like they are bigots.

I think religious people do a lot of good, and I don't have a problem giving them a few exceptions.

Now I have said before that if a church is a megachurch, and can afford to spend money on politics, then they should have to pay property tax. You could even say churches over a certain size have to pay something in property tax. I'm not mr total free ride for anyone.

Also one guy put what if the pill is needed to control a woman's period etc etc. That one is a tough one i would say that should be covered, which would open a stupid loophole.

So for sure I see both sides to it. Obama was smart to cave on it because doing so probably doesn't cost him any votes. Not doing so probably would have cost him a million or so, maybe even more.
Like I said , when they are not molesting kids , they are not half bad people .......

[Rigs11]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;3488719]If there is one thing that is clear around the world, the Catholic Church's proscriptions on birth control bring nothing but poverty, misery and starvation to the third world. Look at Haiti - 80% Catholic. There's a shining example of that policy.

**** them and **** their medieval mind-set. They can do whatever they want in their own church. Fine. But we are a secular, science and reason based, forward thinking society. Why should we allow these medieval anchors to drag us down? If their dogma is so important to them, let them get out of the health care business. Otherwise, if they are going to have more than fifteen employees and offer preventative health care and medicines to those employees, then they are not going to proscribe contraception.

Birth control, for those who haven't noticed, is one of the great boons of modern medicine.[/QUOTE

Recent poll shows that 98% of catholic women have used contraceptives.oops

[ant1999e]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;3488719]If there is one thing that is clear around the world, the Catholic Church's proscriptions on birth control bring nothing but poverty, misery and starvation to the third world. Look at Haiti - 80% Catholic. There's a shining example of that policy.

**** them and **** their medieval mind-set. They can do whatever they want in their own church. Fine. But we are a secular, science and reason based, forward thinking society. Why should we allow these medieval anchors to drag us down? If their dogma is so important to them, let them get out of the health care business. Otherwise, if they are going to have more than fifteen employees and offer preventative health care and medicines to those employees, then they are not going to proscribe contraception.

Birth control, for those who haven't noticed, is one of the great boons of modern medicine.[/QUOTE

Recent poll shows that 98% of catholic women have used contraceptives.oops
Not the point genius.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

f there is one thing that is clear around the world, the Catholic Church's proscriptions on birth control bring nothing but poverty, misery and starvation to the third world. Look at Haiti - 80% Catholic. There's a shining example of that policy.

This.

Another prime example would be the Philippines.

Everything the Catholic Church touches with its anachronistic dogma turns to sh*t.

[Bronco Yoda]

The Catholic Church had married priests for its first 1,000 years, until it became difficult to support their wives and children (and to determine which property belonged to the church and which to the family). The Church makes changes whenever it convenient for them.

That reminds me.... Season 2 of 'The Borgias' on Showtime is only a few weeks away.

Are there any Catholics that watched season 1 here? What did you think of it?

[cutthemdown]

The Catholic Church had married priests for its first 1,000 years, until it became difficult to support their wives and children (and to determine which property belonged to the church and which to the family). The Church makes changes whenever it convenient for them.

That reminds me.... Season 2 of 'The Borgias' on Showtime is only a few weeks away.

Are there any Catholics that watched season 1 here? What did you think of it?

I agree it makes no sense to not let them marry. You will attract some weirdos when you make a rule like no sex. Still I don't think you should force a Catholic church to pay for birth control. People if they don't like it can work at a non Catholic church or school. As long as people have a choice, i won't complain.

[Bronco Yoda]

I'm fine with choice. But what if you live a town that's only large enough for one hospital. It's not large enough to support two.

And that ONE hospital is a religious affiliated hospital. They got there first. It doesn't offer some normal benefits to it's employees (towns people) and doesn't offer some normal procedures due to it's beliefs.

What then?

[Spider]

I'm fine with choice. But what if you live a town that's only large enough for one hospital. It's not large enough to support two.

And that ONE hospital is a religious affiliated hospital. They got there first. It doesn't offer some normal benefits to it's employees (towns people) and doesn't offer some normal procedures due to it's beliefs.

What then?

hey are shiat out of luck , up shiat creek without a paddle , they are the fire hydrant and the church is lassie ,Shiat rolls down hill and they are at the bottom , Catholic church motto , we dont molest kids any more , but jacking off is alot of fun ........

[cutthemdown]

I'm fine with choice. But what if you live a town that's only large enough for one hospital. It's not large enough to support two.

And that ONE hospital is a religious affiliated hospital. They got there first. It doesn't offer some normal benefits to it's employees (towns people) and doesn't offer some normal procedures due to it's beliefs.

What then?

You don't need a hospital to get birth control. If any hospital tries to choose to not perform life saving or needed medical treatment im right there with ya. But we are talking about birth control. Also you are never forced to live anywhere. I say the same thing about subsidzed air travel so small towns can have flights. I don't agree with that sort of thing. If you want to live in a small town, be prepared for no broadband or a big airport or hospital. If your own taxes and market dont support it, you dont get it. You don't like it, move to a bigger city.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How to make a teabagger's head explode...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/424786_383644634994387_108038612554992_1491595_516 073252_n.jpg