• 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

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
During church services on Sunday, Catholics around the country were read a blistering letter assailing the Obama administration for an "assault on religious liberty" in the form of a coming requirement that most church-linked organizations - among them hospitals, schools and universities - offer birth control coverage as part of their health care plans.
Despite strong lobbying from religious groups, the Health and Human Services Department announced earlier this month that most church-linked groups will not be exempt from the requirements - which also mandate that no co-pay be charged for contraceptive services - though they will have an extra year to comply beyond the August 1 deadline. Churches themselves (along with any other employer that is explicitly focused on offering a religious message, and which primarily employs those who believe in that message) are exempt from the requirement.

Catholics hear anti-Obama letter in church - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


Obama must be either insane, taking on a voting block that makes up some 28% of the electorate, or he is just conceeded enough to think that he can dictate to the Church.

What say you?


j-mac
 
Obama must be either insane, taking on a voting block that makes up some 28% of the electorate, or he is just conceeded enough to think that he can dictate to the Church.

What say you?


j-mac[/FONT][/LEFT]

This is only for the profit companies that are partnered or owned by churches. If the church doesn't like it, get out of the public business and go back to being non-profit.

It's real simple, nobody is forcing them to be a profit company. When you go from non-profit to profit, the rules change on how you can deal and discriminate against the public.
 
This is only for the profit companies that are partnered or owned by churches. If the church doesn't like it, get out of the public business and go back to being non-profit.

It's real simple, nobody is forcing them to be a profit company. When you go from non-profit to profit, the rules change on how you can deal and discriminate against the public.


Um, I don't think I have heard that part of it...Another report says...

New rules, introduced under Mr Obama's overhaul of the US healthcare system, mean that religious charities, universities and other groups must now provide contraception in staff insurance packages.

Roman Catholic leaders criticise Barack Obama over healthcare - Telegraph


Maybe you could provide where you are getting your information from?

j-mac
 
Obama must be either insane, taking on a voting block that makes up some 28% of the electorate, or he is just conceeded enough to think that he can dictate to the Church.

What say you?


j-mac[/FONT][/LEFT]
I respect two things primarily about Obama, 1: he doesn't pander to the stupid Israel-first lobby and 2: he doesn't pander to archaic bronze age fairy tales when setting public policy. Perhaps if the Catholic Church didn't cover up and protect pedophilic Priests for decades I'd care a little bit more about their "conscience." It's highly absurd that they believe condoms are immoral yet the Bishops who aided in the protection of pedophilia are still in positions of power and influence.
 
Um, I don't think I have heard that part of it...Another report says...




Maybe you could provide where you are getting your information from?

j-mac

I'll try to find a better source, but for now :

Christian Health Share Ministries' Exempt from ObamaCare - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

A paragraph on page 107 of the legislation reads,"...Exemptions from Individual Responsibility Requirements -- (A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual's status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry..." Per Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, the definition of health care sharing ministry (HCSM) is ," A biblically based method of meeting needs by a health care cost sharing arrangement among individuals of similar and sincerely held beliefs." HCSM's are not insurance companies; they are non-profit religious organizations that facilitate the sharing of medical bills between its members


Basically what I'm getting is "non-profit" should not have to follow the healthcare law and therefore shouldn't have to follow the condom/birth control part of it either. However, hospitals and other "profit" organizations owned by the church will have to abide by the Healthcare law.
 
This is an excellent illustration of where the federal government tends to undermine freedom. It also proves, in my view, that the true motive of those in power who support more welfare state programs has nothing to do with alleviating the plight of the poor, and everything to do with power. The Catholic Church has a rich history of providing many programs to aid the poor in this country, and it seems completely unnecessary to alienate this group over such an issue.

The issue is not whether or not contraceptives are good. The issue is the imposition of an arbitrary standard upon a group that simply finds compliance immoral. Whether or not they are correct is beside the point, because in a free society they have every right to hold those beliefs. Furthermore, those charities etc that the Catholic Church operates fit perfectly into the welfare state ideal, except the fact that they aren't done by the state. In other words, leftist leaders don't reap elective benefits from the Catholic Church helping the poor, so they have found a way to incentivize them to stop.
 
I respect two things primarily about Obama, 1: he doesn't pander to the stupid Israel-first lobby and 2: he doesn't pander to archaic bronze age fairy tales when setting public policy. Perhaps if the Catholic Church didn't cover up and protect pedophilic Priests for decades I'd care a little bit more about their "conscience." It's highly absurd that they believe condoms are immoral yet the Bishops who aided in the protection of pedophilia are still in positions of power and influence.

Attacking certain members of the Catholic Church is entirely beside the point. Even though you may find their views "archaic," that still does not give the federal government the right to impose standards on them that they find immoral. I personally find nothing wrong with contraception, but I am not about to force Catholics to distribute it when providing services if they find it offensive. Your comment lacks something vital to a free society: respect.
 
Basically what I'm getting is "non-profit" should not have to follow the healthcare law and therefore shouldn't have to follow the condom/birth control part of it either. However said:
Just a question: even if that is the case, ought the government have the power to impose such standards on a hospital operated by a religious organization, even if they make profit?
 
He's not fighting an electorate that comprises 28% of the population. You shouldn't assume that 100% of Catholics are dumb enough to be against birth control. Most of them know it's a good thing. I dated two Catholic girls before my wife, both were on birth control. My wife is catholic, she's on birth control. She has 5 female Catholic cousins, above the age of 15, all on birth control, though two of them say it is more of a female thing rather than for actual birth control purposes. All of their parents know and are fine with them being on it.

Obama didn't ask them to do something that all of them find objectionable. Only a few idiots find it objectionable to use birth control.


http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...th-obama-over-romney-on-birth-control-mandate
The PPP survey found that 56 percent of voters — and 53 percent of Catholic voters — support the administration’s birth-control mandate. By roughly the same margins, voters and Catholic voters agreed specifically that women employed by Catholic universities and hospitals “should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

The new survey, conducted by Public Policy Polling, suggests that Romney doesn’t stand to gain much ground by attacking the controversial mandate. Only 23 percent of those polled said they’re more likely to vote for Romney because of his pledge to roll back the requirement, while 40 percent said they’re less likely to support him.
 
Last edited:
Just a question: even if that is the case, ought the government have the power to impose such standards on a hospital operated by a religious organization, even if they make profit?


Short answer? Yes. Once you join the "for profit" world, things change for everybody not just the church. Charities in general (non-religious) that operate in the "for-profit" world have to follow the same set of guidelines set forth.

Again, if the church doesn't like it, then stay out of the "for profit" world. The problem is the church wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make money but they don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. Sorry, but I feel no sympathy for that.
 
Attacking certain members of the Catholic Church is entirely beside the point. Even though you may find their views "archaic," that still does not give the federal government the right to impose standards on them that they find immoral. I personally find nothing wrong with contraception, but I am not about to force Catholics to distribute it when providing services if they find it offensive. Your comment lacks something vital to a free society: respect.

Are you paying attention at ALL?

This is about Catholic Hospital Corporations paying taxes just like other corporate hospital companies.

Or were you thinking that only Catholic staff and Catholic doctors work in Catholic hospitals?

They can do as they please as long as they don't accept federal funding.. They want it BOTH ways.
 
Obama must be either insane, taking on a voting block that makes up some 28% of the electorate, or he is just conceeded enough to think that he can dictate to the Church.

What say you?


j-mac[/FONT][/LEFT]

had i been sitting in the pew, i would have got up and walked out. first of all, no one is forcing catholics to use contraception, or to get an abortion. ridiculous that the letter says a blow has been dealt to all catholics. hyperbole at it's worst.

secondly, the actual church is not required to comply, only for profit entities.

this is precisely why i HAD to leave the church. catholics use bc all the time. catholic priests also molest children. why should ANYONE listen to them? self righteous assholes.
 
had i been sitting in the pew, i would have got up and walked out. first of all, no one is forcing catholics to use contraception, or to get an abortion. ridiculous that the letter says a blow has been dealt to all catholics. hyperbole at it's worst.

secondly, the actual church is not required to comply, only for profit entities.

this is precisely why i HAD to leave the church. catholics use bc all the time. catholic priests also molest children. why should ANYONE listen to them? self righteous assholes.

Excellent post!!!!!!!!!
 
Here is what I believe:

1) Religious organizations are not above the law. They must abide by the law too.

2) However, I do not believe that ANY employer, religious or not, should be forced to provide contraception, or even medical care. If the employee does not like it, the employee can always look elsewhere for employment.

I just killed 2 birds with one stone.
 
Short answer? Yes. Once you join the "for profit" world, things change for everybody not just the church. Charities in general (non-religious) that operate in the "for-profit" world have to follow the same set of guidelines set forth.

Again, if the church doesn't like it, then stay out of the "for profit" world. The problem is the church wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make money but they don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. Sorry, but I feel no sympathy for that.

Fair enough. Of course, I'd have to disagree :). I think the government ought not involve itself in these kinds of impositions of private entities. Even if a secular hospital had a policy of not doing something on moral grounds, I would support that group's right to do that as opposed to letting the feds dictate what everyone MUST provide. I think we get into trouble when either side wants to impose uniform standards on things that can bring divisiveness to a situation that simply doesn't require it. Catholic hospitals do a lot of good... why piss them off over something so trivial?
 
Fair enough. Of course, I'd have to disagree :). I think the government ought not involve itself in these kinds of impositions of private entities. Even if a secular hospital had a policy of not doing something on moral grounds, I would support that group's right to do that as opposed to letting the feds dictate what everyone MUST provide. I think we get into trouble when either side wants to impose uniform standards on things that can bring divisiveness to a situation that simply doesn't require it. Catholic hospitals do a lot of good... why piss them off over something so trivial?

is this forcing catholic hospitals to provide services that they object to?
 
Catholic hospitals do a lot of good... why piss them off over something so trivial?

Well, here's the thing. I could say the same about the Catholic hospitals. Why are they getting pissed over something so trivial? I mean, they are hiring non-Catholics who do not follow the religion. They have to realize that these people may live a lifestyle that is against the church. Why is it a big deal to offer it to them? The Catholics that don't want Birth Control don't have to take it.

Works both ways ;)
 
Last edited:
had i been sitting in the pew, i would have got up and walked out. first of all, no one is forcing catholics to use contraception, or to get an abortion. ridiculous that the letter says a blow has been dealt to all catholics. hyperbole at it's worst.

secondly, the actual church is not required to comply, only for profit entities.

this is precisely why i HAD to leave the church. catholics use bc all the time. catholic priests also molest children. why should ANYONE listen to them? self righteous assholes.

I was with you until this last line.
catholic priests also molest children. why should ANYONE listen to them? self righteous assholes.

This is no better than being racists and assuming all black guys commit crimes, or that all gays have aids or anything else. I thought liberals, like your "lean" says you are, were tolerant. Because some priests have molested children you accusing every priest of it? That is pretty ****ty of you. Hating the people of a faith is no worse than people who are hating on a race, sexual preference or anything else.
 
Here is what I believe:

1) Religious organizations are not above the law. They must abide by the law too.

2) However, I do not believe that ANY employer, religious or not, should be forced to provide contraception, or even medical care. If the employee does not like it, the employee can always look elsewhere for employment.

I just killed 2 birds with one stone.

i would like for it to work that way as well, but right now, it does not. i don't think insurance should cover viagra but not bc. trite, but true.
 
Here is what I believe:

1) Religious organizations are not above the law. They must abide by the law too.

2) However, I do not believe that ANY employer, religious or not, should be forced to provide contraception, or even medical care. If the employee does not like it, the employee can always look elsewhere for employment.

I just killed 2 birds with one stone.

So Sear and Walmart and any other Corporate entity could object to providing medical insurance to their employees..

Maybe they object to maternity altogether, or emergency hospital care or pneumonia.
 
So Sear and Walmart and any other Corporate entity could object to providing medical insurance to their employees..

Maybe they object to maternity altogether, or emergency hospital care or pneumonia.

personally, i think we should have universal healthcare where all employers contribute to a general fund. then this silliness would not be an issue.
 
I was with you until this last line.


This is no better than being racists and assuming all black guys commit crimes, or that all gays have aids or anything else. I thought liberals, like your "lean" says you are, were tolerant. Because some priests have molested children you accusing every priest of it? That is pretty ****ty of you. Hating the people of a faith is no worse than people who are hating on a race, sexual preference or anything else.


Nothing to be surprised about here.

I've often observed that the ones who most loudly proclaim their opposition to any form of bigotry very often turn out to the very worst bigots of all. And usually, they are the ones who calls themselves “liberals”.
 
Are you paying attention at ALL?

This is about Catholic Hospital Corporations paying taxes just like other corporate hospital companies.

Or were you thinking that only Catholic staff and Catholic doctors work in Catholic hospitals?

They can do as they please as long as they don't accept federal funding.. They want it BOTH ways.

Yes sharon, because I read the article. In fact, the article in question focuses on the insurance benefits provided by those institutions and the subsequent requirements enacted by HHS. However, the point about federal funding is a good one. I agree that if they receive federal funding then they should abide by the rules. However, I don't think the rules should be that way... especially considering that the "morning after pill" is part of this list.

Look, my view on this is that we only get ourselves into trouble when we force certain groups to go against their moral convictions. It is not worth alienating the Catholic Church to ask this of them, and federal funds should never go to abortions considering how divisive of an issue it is. If half the country strongly opposes something, then we should not make it part of the national budget. This is exactly why federalism is a much better way to deal with these things.
 
Back
Top Bottom