• 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

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:...

why are you refusing to answer the question?

its a very simple question: do you believe a religious oriented hospital or clinic should have the right to refuse treatment to someone based on religious objections?

very simple question....I know you can do it.
 
...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?

FAIL.

you don't get to ask me any more questions about anything, until you answer my question.

sorry.
 
why are you refusing to answer the question?

its a very simple question: do you believe a religious oriented hospital or clinic should have the right to refuse treatment to someone based on religious objections?

very simple question....I know you can do it. I believe in you.

Because the entire conversation has already been laid out, and because it's a strawman. I never said a thing about anyone turning away patients, ever, so I'm not obligated to dance with you on this. This whole HHS ruckus has nothing to do with that and it isn't comparable. And every point which you could make in response to whatever I say has already been answered.

It's a just a distraction from your own inability to back up what you've actually said, anyway, which I suppose is why you've latched onto it.
 

Fail? How did I fail? You simply ignored my response. THAT'S what I would call a "fail."

you don't get to ask me any more questions about anything, until you answer my question.

:roll: Or you'll tell your mommy?
 
Which can be resolved the next day through confession.

j-mac

I never heard of that before.. So excommunication is temporary?

Why would a Catholic have to confess for saving a life?
 
temporary? no, but there are steps you can take to regain your acceptence within the church. I just outlined one.


j-mac

do you think a Catholic-run hospital should have the right to refuse treatment to a gay, or a Jew, or a Muslim, on religious grounds?
 
...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.....

a Catholic institution would never turn away a gay or a Jew, seeking help?

tell that to the Jews of Poland, 1938-1944.
 
Why do we feel we have to impose this on a group of people who don't want it? We know better for them?

I couldn't agree more. Why we have to impose religous doctrine on non-Catholics who happen to work at a Catholic hospital is beyond reason. No one is being forced to take birth control are they?
 
I couldn't agree more. Why we have to impose religous doctrine on non-Catholics who happen to work at a Catholic hospital is beyond reason. No one is being forced to take birth control are they?

no one is forcing them to work there. they could always panhandle.
 
so you're not gonna answer the question, after having told me to answer your question first?

how dishonest of you.

No, I asked it first.

And I answered it in the manner it warranted.

I will say this, to couch it in my own terms and not those in which are convenient to you:

No one should be forced by the government to do something which runs against their religious conscience.
 
yeah, you got me to answer your question first...only to have you cut & run from answering my question to you.

how honest of you.

No, you provided no basic liberty, and that which you did provide, I dispensed with easily.

And you have not shown how I was wrong in doing so.
 
a Catholic institution would never turn away a gay or a Jew, seeking help?

tell that to the Jews of Poland, 1938-1944.

You call ME dishonest?

You bring up something they were forced to do by the Nazis as an example to smear Catholics?

Not only is that dishonest, it's repugnant. It's truly disgusting. Very, very low indeed. This is your version of integrity?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Harshaw and Thunder. Stop the sniping at each other and stick to the topic.
 
Alright, so we have established that no hospital, whether religious or not, should have the right to turn away a sick or injured person, simply based on their sexuality or religion. Glad to hear it.

Meanwhile, which medical services should a religious-oriented establishment not have to pay for?

condoms, the pill, abortion, treatment of bris complications?

and even if the money is TOTALLY fronted by the HMO, its still not enough?

what would be enough? literally forbidding the HMO from providing such services or medication?

where does it end?
 
I never heard of that before.. So excommunication is temporary?

Why would a Catholic have to confess for saving a life?


It was right there in the article of the thread you posted. Didn't you read the article first, or only the headline and thought, hey, this is good to throw out against the wall....


j-mac
 
do you think a Catholic-run hospital should have the right to refuse treatment to a gay, or a Jew, or a Muslim, on religious grounds?

My Mother, Rest her soul, was a Nurse at a Catholic hospital for my entire life, and I have NEVER heard of that happening.


j-mac
 
Alright, so we have established that no hospital, whether religious or not, should have the right to turn away a sick or injured person, simply based on their sexuality or religion. Glad to hear it.

Meanwhile, which medical services should a religious-oriented establishment not have to pay for?

condoms, the pill, abortion, treatment of bris complications?

and even if the money is TOTALLY fronted by the HMO, its still not enough?

what would be enough? literally forbidding the HMO from providing such services or medication?

where does it end?

Giving the Church the option of having a plan that doesn't force things they find goes against their teachings.

j-mac
 
Giving the Church the option of having a plan that doesn't force things they find goes against their teachings....

ah, so Catholics want the ability to have a healthcare plan that provides NO abortion, Plan B, or birth-control pills.

how about if their employees are allowed to purchase an optionl rider that covers such things? would that be enough?

thought not. this is about controlling the health of their employees.
 
My Mother, Rest her soul, was a Nurse at a Catholic hospital for my entire life, and I have NEVER heard of that happening.


j-mac

that's not what I asked you. I asked you if they should have the RIGHT, to make such a decision.

why is this question so hard for some folks? its a simple yes or no question.
 
Back
Top Bottom