• 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 hear anti-Obama letter in church

Thunder said:
I don't get it. The birth-control pill does NOT kill a fertilized egg. No "soul" is being snuffed.

so what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

Your inability to grasp Catholic doctrine is entirely beside the point. That's why religious freedom is protected in the first place.

Or is religious freedom only for religious beliefs you find yourself in accord with? Starting to look that way.
 
Harshaw said:
Your inability to grasp Catholic doctrine is entirely beside the point. That's why religious freedom is protected in the first place.

Or is religious freedom only for religious beliefs you find yourself in accord with? Starting to look that way.
Click to expand...

how is that some folks think "religious freedom" means "the right to step on the rights of others"?

should you have the right, on religous grounds, to discriminate against gays?

against blacks?

against Muslims & Jews?

"sorry buddy, there's no room in the inn for Jews and blacks".

??????
 
Thunder said:
so if a Christian works for a Jewish hospital, the hospital should be allowed to not pay healthcare for someone who eats pork?

or someone who kneels before a statue of a holy man?

you really want to take this country back to a time when religious discrimination was perfectly legal, huh?
Click to expand...

Saying the same thing again doesn't answer the question. Make a compelling argument for forcing them to do it. You're the one who has to justify limiting freedom. Maintaining freedom is, as I said, the default mode.

So do it. I suspect you can't.

(And I have no idea what delusion you're under about "religious discrimination" and "perfectly legal," so I won't even bother.)
 
Thunder said:
how is that some folks think "religious freedom" means "the right to step on the rights of others"?
Click to expand...

When you find a right being "stepped on" here, get back to me.
 
Thunder said:
how is that some folks think "religious freedom" means "the right to step on the rights of others"?
Click to expand...

You don't have a 'right' to a job with a Catholic hospital, any more than you have any 'right' to have someone else pay for your irresponsible behavior.


j-mac
 
Harshaw said:
...Make a compelling argument for forcing them to do it. You're the one who has to justify limiting freedom....
Click to expand...

you want a compelling argument?

religious doctrine should not be used as an excuse to deprive people of their basic liberties.


many of us came to this country SEEKING religious freedom, not the freedom to discriminate based on religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Your inability to grasp Catholic doctrine is entirely beside the point.
Click to expand...

You say 'grasp the doctrine' as if it were based on logic or reason.

The bible is a collection of stories, letters, poems--a history of early western civ mythology.

The catechism of the Catholic church is their rule book, if you will, outlining their dogma, traditions, and mean by which they keep their peeps in line.

What does that have to do with modern medicine, and the basic freedoms of adults?

Answer me this: How can anyone argue that celibate men should be setting rules for women on sexuality???




That's why religious freedom is protected in the first place.
Click to expand...

Freedom being he operative word. You can be a Catholic and still use rubbers.
 
Thunder said:
you want a compelling argument?

religious doctrine should not be used as an excuse to deprive people of their basic liberties.
Click to expand...

No one's deprived of any "basic liberty," period. Not in anything concerning this HHS mandate, and not in your scenario concerning complications from a bris.

No one.
 
should a Catholic hospital have the right to NOT treat, and turn away a gay man, based on their religious beliefs?

turn away a Jew?
 
Harshaw said:
No one's deprived of any "basic liberty," period. Not in anything concerning this HHS mandate, and not in your scenario concerning complications from a bris.

No one.
Click to expand...

if my employer refuses to pay for the healthcare of my son, because he has complications with is bris, that is discrimination and evil.
 
hazlnut said:
You say 'grasp the doctrine' as if it were based on logic or reason.

The bible is a collection of stories, letters, poems--a history of early western civ mythology.

The catechism of the Catholic church is their rule book, if you will, outlining their dogma, traditions, and mean by which they keep their peeps in line.

What does that have to do with modern medicine, and the basic freedoms of adults?

Answer me this: How can anyone argue that celibate men should be setting rules for women on sexuality???


Freedom being he operative word. You can be a Catholic and still use rubbers.
Click to expand...

This entire post is nonsensical gibberish. It's also entirely beside the point -- no one cares, and no one should care, what you personally think of Catholic doctrine.
 
Thunder said:
if my employer refuses to pay for the healthcare of my son, because he has complications with is bris, that is discrimination and evil.
Click to expand...

Which "basic liberty" is being "deprived"? Do you have an answer for that?

And your personal moral view on it is beside the point. Freedom isn't about being allowed to do only those things which you consider moral. That's no "freedom" at all.

Unfortunately for people who think the way you do, actual freedom and liberty mean that people are going to make choices you don't like. I know it's tough for you to handle, but that's your personal problem.
 
Harshaw said:
This entire post is nonsensical gibberish. It's also entirely beside the point -- no one cares, and no one should care, what you personally think of Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...

I know more about Catholic doctrine than you do. The history of the Catholicism, the reasons behind the rules. Control. Greed.

I grew up in the Episcopal church and married into the Catholic faith. I grew up w/o the pope. And don't much see a need for one now. However, I support my wife's desire to have our children go through the process and then make their own decisions after Confirmation.

You see, college classes on comparative religions and studying the bible as literature have corrupted my thinking, by opening my mind.

When you really want to get educated, PM me. Otherwise, spare us the personal attacks--you just look foolish and embarrass yourself.
 
Thunder said:
the liberty to be treated equally and fairly.
Click to expand...

That's not a "liberty." And they are, anyway, because no one else in the same employ gets the coverage that they don't. Equal treatment. ("Fair?" It really doesn't matter if you personally think it is or not.)

So, bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer.


now, answer my question "sweetie".
Click to expand...

Sure, toots.

1) It's a moot point, because a Catholic hospital, consistent with its beliefs, wouldn't do so. "Love thy neighbor" is the rule, as is "love the sinner, hate the sin." If you think Catholics, as a matter of doctrine, would turn away a gay man for being gay, then it's you who have a tremendous religious bigotry, based in ignorance. (As is your "bris" example which I indulged, because not only does it show how monstrous you ignorantly think Catholics are, you also seem to think that circumcision is somehow proscribed by the Church.)

2) It's not a comparable situation in any respect. It would be intentional neglect of someone who needs care. Not wishing to pay for someone's personal choices which conflict with church views is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing.
 
hazlnut said:
I know more about Catholic doctrine than you do.
Click to expand...

Being that it's you saying this, I'm going to be laughing for the next 2-3 hours.


Otherwise, spare us the personal attacks--you just look foolish and embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...

And for another 2-3 hours after that.
 
Harshaw said:
...Sure, toots.

1) It's a moot point, because a Catholic hospital, consistent with its beliefs, wouldn't do so. "Love thy neighbor" is the rule, as is "love the sinner, hate the sin." If you think Catholics, as a matter of doctrine, would turn away a gay man for being gay, then it's you who have a tremendous religious bigotry, based in ignorance. (As is your "bris" example which I indulged, because not only does it show how monstrous you ignorantly think Catholics are, you also seem to think that circumcision is somehow proscribed by the Church.)

2) It's not a comparable situation in any respect. It would be intentional neglect of someone who needs care. Not wishing to pay for someone's personal choices which conflict with church views is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing.
Click to expand...

you're just evading the question, and most likely your predictably pathetic answer, with lots of words.

now, let's try this again: should a Catholic hospital have the right to refuse treatment to a gay man, or a Jew, or a Muslim, on religious grounds?


...and again, you're sooo not my type. But I am flattered by your sexual advances.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
you're just evading the question, and most likely your predictably pathetic answer, with lots of words.

now, let's try this again: should a Catholic hospital have the right to refuse treatment to a gay man, or a Jew, or a Muslim, on religious grounds?
Click to expand...

There are no religious grounds on which they would do so.

Do you not understand that I've simply deconstructed your hypothetical as entirely irrelevant, meaningless, and ignorant? You think you're being clever, but you're not.

The questions I've asked you, of course, stem from things you've actually said. As according to what I've said, this is a silly, silly strawman. Sorry you don't have anything better.


...and again, you're sooo not my type.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that? Are you bothered by something? Is this an anti-gay thing? Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
There are no religious grounds on which they would do so.

Do you not understand that I've simply deconstructed your hypothetical as entirely irrelevant, meaningless, and ignorant?....
Click to expand...

again, you're evading the question. Let's try this a little different huh?

should a Jewish hospital, or a Muslim hospital, or a Hindu health clinic in the USA, have the right to refuse treatment to a gay...or a Buddhist...due to their religious objections?
 
Thunder said:
again, you're evading the question. Let's try this a little different huh?

should a Jewish hospital, or a Muslim hospital, or a Hindu health clinic in the USA, have the right to refuse treatment to a gay...or a Buddhist...due to their religious objections?
Click to expand...

I've already told you why any answer is irrelevant to this, so why do you persist on asking it?

If I were to say "no," and you pounced on it with "blah blah blah blah self-righteous blather blah blah blah blah," my answer will simply be:

Harshaw said:
2) It's not a comparable situation in any respect. It would be intentional neglect of someone who needs care. Not wishing to pay for someone's personal choices which conflict with church views is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing.
Click to expand...

Now, you've never provided an actual "basic liberty" being deprived, and that which you feebly offered was easily swatted away, so want to try again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom