The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-10-2012, 08:32 AM   #211
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
The Catholic Bishops say it's not about contraceptives !
It's also about gay marriage and loss of control over their flocks.

NY Times
LAURIE GOODSTEIN
February 9, 2012
Bishops Were Prepared for Battle Over Birth Control Coverage
Quote:
When after much internal debate the Obama administration finally announced
its decision to require religiously affiliated hospitals and universities to cover birth control
in their insurance plans, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops were fully prepared for battle.

Seven months earlier, they had started laying the groundwork for a major new campaign
to combat what they saw as the growing threat to religious liberty,
including the legalization of same-sex marriage.
But the birth control mandate, issued on Jan. 20, was their Pearl Harbor.<snip>

On the day of the decision, bishops across the country posted similarly dire statements on their Web sites,
and at Mass on the following Sundays, priests read the bishops’ letters from their pulpits and wove
the religious freedom theme into their homilies.<snip>

The ruling issued by the Department of Health and Human Services,
said that only religious organizations that primarily employ and serve their co-religionists
would be exempt from the requirement to provide insurance that covers birth control.
Churches are therefore exempt, but Catholic hospitals, service agencies and colleges are not.

The White House said that 28 states already had such mandates, so this federal rule,
which is part of the health care overhaul just applies the mandate uniformly.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 08:45 AM   #212
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
The Catholic Bishops...
And there are a few hundred of them of them. A drop in the bucket in a country of 100 million active voters.

I'm technically Catholic, and I'm pro contraception. Every Catholic I know is pro contraception. I'm also pro-choice, and about half the Catholics I know are also pro-choice.

Just because the bishops are upset with Obama doesn't mean catholic voters are. And the ones who are, were probably not going to vote for him anyway.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 09:45 AM   #213
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
It is not about what they believe they should do personally, it is about the Federal Government forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their belief. What's next? Are they going to tell Jews to eat pork? Get the point?
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 09:47 AM   #214
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
So do you guys believe that Federal Government should have the power to tell religious organizations that they are required to do something which goes against their belief?
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 09:47 AM   #215
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
He came out with what he wanted, solidified his base and measured the reaction from the rest.
Now that the polling is telling him to, he will compromise and come off as showing what a leader should.
Listening skills. This is a clear win-win to me.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 10:17 AM   #216
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
So do you guys believe that Federal Government should have the power to tell religious organizations that they are required to do something which goes against their belief?
In certain situations yes. Should the federal government ban polygamy? Yes. Should the federal government ban certain extreme aspects of Sharia Law? Yes. Those are hyperboles but I just wanted to make a point that this is not a yes or no answer.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 10:20 AM   #217
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
it is about the Federal Government forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their belief.
No. The Feds are forcing the group to fund insurance that allows people to choose to go against the group's belief. The Feds aren't forcing Catholics to use birth control. Each person makes that choice on their own.

It's kind of like the Feds forcing me to pay money that is used to go to war in Iraq. I don't approve of that, but I have to financially support it anyway. I'm sure you can find examples of things you are forced to pay for that go against your beliefs.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 10:47 AM   #218
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
And this ISN'T about churches, or about religious people. This is about EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES. The law as it stand will actually PROTECT churches in eight states where, currently, EVEN CHURCHES aren't exempt from having to provide birth control. In those eight states, now they WON'T have to. But a religiously-affiliated private employer, catholic or otherwise, will now be held to the same standard of health insurance coverage as a non-religiously-affiliated private employer.
Should it be legal if a religiously-affiliated school, or hospital, or bookstore, wanted to refuse their services or employment opportunities to Muslims, or to black people, or to gays? I think the vast majority of constitutional scholars would say, no, those are situations where their religious beliefs are outweighed by the civil rights of the customers or employees. This decision, along with Obamacare in general, adds certain basic standards of health insurance to the civil rights afforded to all Americans - including the provision that birth control be offered to all employees.


However, it's just been announced that a senior white house official has stated that the revised policy will allow religious employers to refuse to offer birth control coverage - and that the INSURERS, importantly, WILL still have to offer birth control to those employees of religious employers free of charge. I'm totally okay with that.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 10:51 AM   #219
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Ibs - thanks for the specifics of the compromise to which I eluded.
I didn't see enough to confirm when I posted.

ETA:
Quote:
The White House will not back off the administration goal to provide increased access to birth control for women,
but it will provide religious institutions additional details on how to comply with the law
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

Last edited by classicman; 02-10-2012 at 10:57 AM.
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 11:07 AM   #220
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
I think the POLITICS on this are clearly in obama's favor, but the POLICY, the legal standing, I also think is on his side - and even more so now, assuming that the revised policy does both provide birth control and keep religious employers from having to pay for it.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 01:56 PM   #221
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Agreed - as I said, this will be a win-win-win for him.

He gets the benefit from including birth control, takes away a talking point from the opposition
and further isolates the extremists who continue to complain.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 02:43 PM   #222
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
No. The Feds are forcing the group to fund insurance that allows people to choose to go against the group's belief. The Feds aren't forcing Catholics to use birth control. Each person makes that choice on their own.
The entity is the religious organization. It is a violation of the First Amendment. This is not a discussion of what individuals choose to do on their own. The Entity pays for the insurance. The should not have to fund something that goes against their religious belief.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 02:46 PM   #223
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 View Post
In certain situations yes. Should the federal government ban polygamy? Yes.
But no they don't really or we would not have whole towns that engage in polygamy but we do. That is unenforceable.
Quote:
Should the federal government ban certain extreme aspects of Sharia Law? Yes.
But they don't, the SCOTUS just shot down the state of Oklahoma from outlawing certain aspects of Sharia Law via state law.

So you examples are actually not holding water.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 02:47 PM   #224
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
...and further isolates the extremists who continue to complain.
So people with religious objections to the social programs of the Obama Administration are now "extremists"? Wow.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:00 PM   #225
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Giving consumer's the OPTION to purchase birth control is bad how again?

I don't see where this is infringing on a PERSON's religion, in fact I look at it just the opposite way. This should have been done all along.

Somehow you have it that taking away the right of the individual is OK.
Could you explain that to me. Cuz seriously, I don't get it.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.