• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

And yet you support abortion and go against the teachings of your church. Maybe you aren't as "catholic" as you think. :shrug: It's your church not the FEDGOV you need to change. but as a statist, you have no issue with the federal government trampling on the USC when it suits your agenda...

One that's rather anti-catholic at the current moment.

I don't support abortion. I do support contracpetions. In my discussions with my preist, we've have discussed disagreements with the church. You do realize it is rare and anyone agrees with every doctrine of any church. And frankly, I would worry about anyone who didn't have some disagreement.
 
You live a sad existence of hypocritical bigotry and prejudice. So, that's the only reason to you that one can be against the government interfering with the church's choice of what thier health care will provide. That we are all white male racists misogynists.....

really? I just want to make sure you are being serious before I respond.

Again, hosptials are not the church. Schools are not the church. And a small precentage of white males trying to impose their beliefs on people, someone of whom who are not even Catholic, does present a problem for me.
 
Again, hosptials are not the church. Schools are not the church. And a small precentage of white males trying to impose their beliefs on people, someone of whom who are not even Catholic, does present a problem for me.



I will ask you again, perhaps you can try to answer the questions and points I ask instead of the ones you wish I asked:


"You live a sad existence of hypocritical bigotry and prejudice. So, that's the only reason to you that one can be against the government interfering with the church's choice of what thier health care will provide. That we are all white male racists misogynists.....

really? I just want to make sure you are being serious before I respond."




I bolded the part you chose to ignore.
 
I will ask you again, perhaps you can try to answer the questions and points I ask instead of the ones you wish I asked:


"You live a sad existence of hypocritical bigotry and prejudice. So, that's the only reason to you that one can be against the government interfering with the church's choice of what thier health care will provide. That we are all white male racists misogynists.....

really? I just want to make sure you are being serious before I respond."




I bolded the part you chose to ignore.

I know you admitted to dumbing yourself down, but that doesn't mean we all have to play dumb. I stated clearly where I stand, your silly question doesn't change that. I don't see race anywhere in the issue, but I do have a problem with only white males sitting down to decide women issues. I think this is reasonable.
 
I know you admitted to dumbing yourself down, but that doesn't mean we all have to play dumb. I stated clearly where I stand, your silly question doesn't change that. I don't see race anywhere in the issue, but I do have a problem with only white males sitting down to decide women issues. I think this is reasonable.

yes, to your level. :shrug:


Look kid, if you are too weak of character to answer a direct question, you probably shouldn't get an attitude with me. you made the statement, stand by it or retract it. :lol:


I asked you a simple question, your fear of answering it, peacetime, is all the answer I need.


So to you, only white misogynistic males can hold the opinion it is the church's right to dictate what their voluntarily offered health care will offer. And to think the government has no business to dictate to the church can only be of this bigotry.


Talk about "dumbing it down", hero, your ignorant bigoted statement seems a bit ironic.
 
Look kid, if you are too weak of character to answer a direct question, you probably shouldn't get an attitude with me. you made the statement, stand by it or retract it. :lol:


I asked you a simple question, your fear of answering it, peacetime, is all the answer I need.


So to you, only white misogynistic males can hold the opinion it is the church's right to dictate what their voluntarily offered health care will offer. And to think the government has no business to dictate to the church can only be of this bigotry.


Talk about "dumbing it down", hero, your ignorant bigoted statement seems a bit ironic.

Can you not read an answer? I tried to give you one that is accurate and reflects my beliefs. Instead, you want some silly bs answer. If that's all you want, choose one. One lie is as good as another. Otherwise, actually read the answer I gave you.
 
Can you not read an answer? I tried to give you one that is accurate and reflects my beliefs. Instead, you want some silly bs answer. If that's all you want, choose one. One lie is as good as another. Otherwise, actually read the answer I gave you.




A lie? SO that's not your position? you have so much back tracking and ambiguous nonsense it's hard to tell what you believe. Thus far all I got is that white males who hate women are the only ones against forcing the church to provide bc in thier health care insurance......


Am I wrong?
 
A lie? SO that's not your position? you have so much back tracking and ambiguous nonsense it's hard to tell what you believe. Thus far all I got is that white males who hate women are the only ones against forcing the church to provide bc in thier health care insurance......


Am I wrong?

I'm not backing tracking at all. You have to read everything to understand a position. I sense you're not willing to do that. What you should have gotten is women should be at the table and not just white males.
 
I'm not backing tracking at all. You have to read everything to understand a position. I sense you're not willing to do that.


And once again, we reach a point where your nonsense bores the **** out of me. You go hide behind your words, that's your style.... The Boo Radley shuffle. \



I asked you a simple question, you don't have the strength of character for a direct answer. there is nothing more to be said here.
 
And once again, we reach a point where your nonsense bores the **** out of me. You go hide behind your words, that's your style.... The Boo Radley shuffle. \



I asked you a simple question, you don't have the strength of character for a direct answer. there is nothing more to be said here.

Words have meaning. That's why we use them. You have to being to listen. It's a skill worth working on.
 
This has nothing to do with the use of BC.

It has to do with forcing the Church to pay for it.

Huge difference.

They wouldn't be paying for it, the insurance would. Insurance doesn't really work the way most seem to think it does. In fact, it is even likely that they could find insurance policies for less that actually included BC than finding them for more since the insurance companies probably would rather spend the money for BC than spend the money for babies.
 
They wouldn't be paying for it, the insurance would. Insurance doesn't really work the way most seem to think it does. In fact, it is even likely that they could find insurance policies for less that actually included BC than finding them for more since the insurance companies probably would rather spend the money for BC than spend the money for babies.

This seems to be a very difficult concept.
 
This has nothing to do with the use of BC.

It has to do with forcing the Church to pay for it.

Huge difference.

The Church is not being forced to 'pay for birth control'.

That's just pain idiotic.

The Church, as a non-profit corporation operating under U.S. law is being told to pay for adequate health care coverage for its employees (Catholic and otherwise).

Is the Church refusing to pay for prostate medication for men? Then why should women with ovarian issues be made to pay out of pocket for a necessary and common treatment.

Also, the Catholic Church needs to drop "the every sperm is sacred" bit, as the majority of its members don't care what the pope thinks or a bunch of celibate men for that matter.
 
The Church is not being forced to 'pay for birth control'.

That's just pain idiotic.

The Church, as a non-profit corporation operating under U.S. law is being told to pay for adequate health care coverage for its employees (Catholic and otherwise).

Is the Church refusing to pay for prostate medication for men? Then why should women with ovarian issues be made to pay out of pocket for a necessary and common treatment.

Also, the Catholic Church needs to drop "the every sperm is sacred" bit, as the majority of its members don't care what the pope thinks or a bunch of celibate men for that matter.

Women with ovarian issues is a minority of women who would use birth control.
 
The Church is not being forced to 'pay for birth control'.

That's just pain idiotic.

The Church, as a non-profit corporation operating under U.S. law is being told to pay for adequate health care coverage for its employees (Catholic and otherwise).

Is the Church refusing to pay for prostate medication for men? Then why should women with ovarian issues be made to pay out of pocket for a necessary and common treatment.

Also, the Catholic Church needs to drop "the every sperm is sacred" bit, as the majority of its members don't care what the pope thinks or a bunch of celibate men for that matter.




yes., we should line up zee catholics and gas them! :roll:


Separation of church and state is a one way street for the far left. :roll:
 
Remember when that plant fluke held a press conference disquised as senate hearing?


what was it? under 20 bucks a month for BC? More like 9? Less than the six pack lubricant that goes with it?


This is about pissing on the first amendment folks, not birth control.
 
Remember when that plant fluke held a press conference disquised as senate hearing?


what was it? under 20 bucks a month for BC? More like 9? Less than the six pack lubricant that goes with it?


This is about pissing on the first amendment folks, not birth control.
Absolutely, and specifically about killing off religion in this country. Religion and the Constitution are the biggest impediments to a liberal mindset. End all religious faith, and normalize what religious people object to. It's an incremental process, it doesn't happen all at once. It may take another 100 years, but they will work patiently to get it done. Not all liberals have signed on to this, but many have and some don't even realize it. It's really not an agenda as much as it is a mindset.
 
Last edited:
No wonder the Catholic church is losing members daily.
They are fast becoming history and it won't be the 1st time an organization failed to keep up with the times and disappears.
RIP

You've been misinformed.

In fact membership in the Catholic Church in the United States is growing.

Perhaps that's because they are less likely to abort their children.
 
You've been misinformed.

In fact membership in the Catholic Church in the United States is growing.

Perhaps that's because they are less likely to abort their children.

I've seen some reports of small growth in the catholic Church (something 1 1/2 %), but I think this is more accurate:

2. American church attendance is steadily declining.

In 1990, 20.4% of the population attended an Orthodox Christian church on any given weekend. In 2000, that percentage dropped to 18.7% and to 17.7% by 2004. Olson explains that while church attendance numbers have stayed about the same from 1990 to 2004, the U.S. population has grown by 18.1%—more than 48 million people. “So even though the number of attendees is the same, our churches are not keeping up with population growth,” he says.



Well-known church researcher and author Thom Rainer notes that the failure of churches to keep up with the population growth is one of the Church’s greatest issues heading into the future. In a 2002 survey of 1,159 U.S. churches, Rainer’s research team found that only 6% of the churches were growing—he defines growth as not only increasing in attendance, but also increasing at a pace faster than its community’s population growth rate. “Stated inversely, 94% of our churches are losing ground in the communities they serve,” he says.

(snip)

The most significant drop in attendance came at the expense of the Catholic Church, which experienced an 11% decrease in its attendance percentage from 2000 to 2004. Next, and not far behind were mainline churches, which saw a 10% percentage decline. Evangelicals experienced the smallest drop at 1%.

7 Startling Facts: An Up Close Look at Church Attendance in America - ChurchLeaders.com - Christian Leadership Blogs, Articles, Videos, How To's, and Free Resources

I only know here we hav eless churches than we had. Two Catholic churches have closed since I've lived here.
 
They pay taxes, then they can cry and whine. Birth control is essential for many even those not having sex that hae PCOS.
 
Don't you just love how it is a violation of the 1st Amendment the moment that it is something against what that religion doesn't like? But what about for things that the religion does like? Or at least doesn't object to? If we went strictly by the whole seperation of church and state section of the 1st Amendment then the church would be able to ignore any law that we have. Minimum wage? Bah humbug! You peasants aren't worth minimum wage! Womens rights as it pertains to churches? Bah humbug! All them women should be staying home barefoot cooking dinner and having babies! Not working in our buisnesses!

Stupid.
 
I know you admitted to dumbing yourself down, but that doesn't mean we all have to play dumb. I stated clearly where I stand, your silly question doesn't change that. I don't see race anywhere in the issue, but I do have a problem with only white males sitting down to decide women issues. I think this is reasonable.
but that is what he calls "shredding YOUR position" when he has no arguement left. i'm paraphrasing of course.
 
yes, to your level. :shrug:


Look kid, if you are too weak of character to answer a direct question, you probably shouldn't get an attitude with me. you made the statement, stand by it or retract it. :lol:


I asked you a simple question, your fear of answering it, peacetime, is all the answer I need.


So to you, only white misogynistic males can hold the opinion it is the church's right to dictate what their voluntarily offered health care will offer. And to think the government has no business to dictate to the church can only be of this bigotry.


Talk about "dumbing it down", hero, your ignorant bigoted statement seems a bit ironic.
you've been asked MANY questions YOU wished to ignore that is a two way street also apparently.
 
Remember when that plant fluke held a press conference disquised as senate hearing?


what was it? under 20 bucks a month for BC? More like 9? Less than the six pack lubricant that goes with it?


This is about pissing on the first amendment folks, not birth control.
what's one more amendment the 4th has been gone for a while now.
 
I've seen some reports of small growth in the catholic Church (something 1 1/2 %), but I think this is more accurate:

2. American church attendance is steadily declining.

In 1990, 20.4% of the population attended an Orthodox Christian church on any given weekend. In 2000, that percentage dropped to 18.7% and to 17.7% by 2004. Olson explains that while church attendance numbers have stayed about the same from 1990 to 2004, the U.S. population has grown by 18.1%—more than 48 million people. “So even though the number of attendees is the same, our churches are not keeping up with population growth,” he says.



Well-known church researcher and author Thom Rainer notes that the failure of churches to keep up with the population growth is one of the Church’s greatest issues heading into the future. In a 2002 survey of 1,159 U.S. churches, Rainer’s research team found that only 6% of the churches were growing—he defines growth as not only increasing in attendance, but also increasing at a pace faster than its community’s population growth rate. “Stated inversely, 94% of our churches are losing ground in the communities they serve,” he says.

(snip)

The most significant drop in attendance came at the expense of the Catholic Church, which experienced an 11% decrease in its attendance percentage from 2000 to 2004. Next, and not far behind were mainline churches, which saw a 10% percentage decline. Evangelicals experienced the smallest drop at 1%.

7 Startling Facts: An Up Close Look at Church Attendance in America - ChurchLeaders.com - Christian Leadership Blogs, Articles, Videos, How To's, and Free Resources

I only know here we hav eless churches than we had. Two Catholic churches have closed since I've lived here.

You feel that figures from 1990 and a personal anecdote are more accurate concerning increased membership in the Catholic Church than the figures of last year?

You must be a Barrack Obama supporter.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom