Right, because it would have never passed.
New Obamacare Regulations Outrage Catholic Groups
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
Right, because it would have never passed.
Ivan A Nguyen
Member
This is about BC being a right instead of a privileged. I am a catholic, but I think this is a great idea. Health Care should cover as wide a range of medical issues as possible, and the pill can be used to treat illness. If a person feels like it goes against their specific religious beliefs, then they don't have to take the medicine. We have the rite to refuse medical treatment.
These options are not going to force women to go against their beliefs. If they end up taking the medicine, it's because they have decided to. The women should be able to decide, not the companies they work for. These are companies, not non-profits, so they are people. By this reasoning, another person should not be allowed to deny someone rights.
What?
Yep. Too bad the Catholic Church has no choice but to adhere to what their infallible Pope has said on the matter.
Take your pick: Obamacare, PPACA, HCR - they are all interchangeable to me. Liberals love this legislation, why would they NOT want Obama's name attached to it?
GhaleonQ
Member
Writing that pedophilia is bad? Are we not on board with this being bad?
At the same time, not providing coverage is not forcing women to not take birth control.
Because it was unfeasible and didn't have the votes to pass. You can "stand up for what you believe in" all you want, but if the other parties won't play ball, you're just wasting time. Would you have really rather him to veto anything that doesn't have single payer instead of compromising on the issue like he did?
Dude Abides
Banned
That is some terrible ideological hackwork. Complain about no quotes from a Catholic educator who opposes this, right after quote from Catholic educator opposing it.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
Dinosaurs will die.
Providing coverage does not mean that they will have to violate their conscience by having to pony up for it.
Joel Was Right
Member
If there is an exemption for religious institutions then the bigger question is why shouldn't this be extended for religious charities when the alternatives you leave them is to either a) practice an act in contradiction to their faith or b) remove health-care coverage completely (and thus more people without coverage, the very thing the administration sought to fix) so as to not break the law when refusing to provide contraceptives. Neither alternative is reasonable, instead they ask for a compromise - one that already exists - to be applied to them.
GhaleonQ
Member
What are you talking about? Georgetown? If so, I think your problem is that you don't have a sophisticated understanding of American religion (not an insult, just a weak area; you know I like you well enough). They spelled it out in that article for your benefit.
(For the record, they are well-respected, as is Killing The Buddha. There's no "hackwork" from 1 of the few experienced religion writers out there.)
Obviously, this is a reasonable opinion, but why should the executive branch set the level of church-to-state subservience at your level? Do you think this fits in with the historical American interpretation of religious freedom? At what point would you personally set it? Is there, say, a legitimate religious exemption from conscription, to you? Set some guidelines.
I say this as a Lutheran who has accepted that there is church-into-the-state "interference" where I'd prefer there not to be.
Dude Abides
Banned
They complain about how the Times article doesn't have quotes "from qualified, experienced Catholic educators who want to defend their faith on this matter — which would mean resisting government actions to force them to financially support actions they believe are sinful."
When the piece in fact says: "Birth control is considered a “preventive service” under the new health care law, but Mr. Galligan-Stierle said such services should be limited to preventing disease, not pregnancy. 'We do not happen to think pregnancy is disease,” he said. 'We think it’s a gift of love of two people and our creator.'"
However respected they may be in whatever circles, that piece was inane and silly. Someone with a hammer thinking everything is a nail.
Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
They are not required to contradict their faith. No Catholic is forced to use birth control by this. They are simply required, if they wish to be an employer who provides healthcare, to meet minimum standards that include provision of contraception.
Ivan A Nguyen
Member
The non-profit, "Main goal is spreading religion" organizations, are exempt. This is about companies, for profit entities. By definition they are not the church in a church-to-state example. At the most, they endorse the beliefs of the church.
GhaleonQ
Member
The objection is that both sides, the Catholic one especially, got the nuances of their stands steamrolled by awful reporting. The included "culture of death" rhetoric ought to be included and was. If you think that the best or more prominent interpretation of the mounds of Catholic theology that exists on this subject can be summed up with the "gift of love" quotation, then I can't help you. That would be poor even for television news. That's reporting from someone who doesn't know what they're looking for from 1 side.
The usual caveats about space apply, but this is actually an important election/religious freedom/signature piece of legislation issue. They should make the space. This is why Christians feel like they get short shrift from the media. The respectable people who complain aren't asking for favorable coverage, per se, just the correct coverage.
Is there any difference, to you, with a Georgetown, a Villanova, and a Catholic University Of America? Are any of them "religion-first" or "officially connected" rather than simply "endorsing?"
Ivan A Nguyen
Member
Same thing it says about everything else. A bunch of words in Hebrew.
Joel Was Right
Member
The actual provision, the supplying, is the issue. If you believe something has the potential to be 'intrinsically evil' and thus do not use it, you can't then be directly involved in its supply. This isn't even a debate on whether religious institutions should be exempt from this law - they already are - but rather what distinction is there for why religious charities cannot be. I've yet to see one reason
BotoxAgent
Member
Dear Catholic Church
SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY
SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY
I agree with your reasoning, but I think religious institutions should NOT be exempt from this law. Solve the problem, not the symptom.
Mattlikewhoa
Member
Quoted for truth...
Unhandled Exception
Member
Responsibility? In my church?
At least, I wish this is what would happen.
At least, I wish this is what would happen.
Georgetown is Jesuits, nova is augistinians.
So many ignorant posts in the this thread.
It really doesn't matter what modern secular people think about the Catholic Church theology on sex, marriage, and life. The Catholic Church has taught the same things since the time of Christ, so no it will never change.
The issue is more about the modern state vs religion. Both sides have a point to an extent, I just think this will blow over the sooner we come to the election. There are still millions of Catholic Democrats out there, Obama would be foolish to push them away.
I know, but it's use by the OP instantly paints him as having an agenda.
The Lamonster
Member
First reply wins again.
Dude Abides
Banned
There's no objection that HHS's view was steamrolled. There's an implication that an article on the topic requires multi-page exegesis of Catholic theology since Augustine, which you're reiterating. It's simply not necessary or particularly relevant. This is a fight between politicians and religious people. Just as the article does not go into great analytical depth about the health benefits of contraception, there is no need for it to get into the weeds of Catholic doctrine. It's not a reporter's job to make sure one side puts its "best and most prominent" face forward. You seem to want this to be a piece in the Sunday Magazine religion section rather than news reporting.
Because religious charities are participating in secular activities, particular in their capacity as employer. By your logic, Wal-Mart could call itself a religiously-affiliated store and claim exemption as well. Should Catholic Charities be able to exempt itself from child labor laws as well?
GhaleonQ
Member
So, that means what, to you? They are or aren't official? What determines that? Is it not allowing in non-Catholics, having chapels on campus, having Catholic theology in their code or founding documents, having something in their name, having certain people on their board or in administration, or being legally tied to the Catholic Church?
Or is any school not a church and, therefore, it should not be considered The Catholic Church?
If you sort out the reasoning, we can prevent this conversation from being just you ranking your values (when, as others have posted, it's already clear that most Catholics don't care about their church's theology on this)?
1. That attitude makes it look like 1 side is just whining, when, really, they have been roundly ridiculed for taking a stance and have tried to shore up their reasoning in response (partially).
2. To me, this is like the euro crisis being reported as a Merkel versus Sarkozy versus Greek Official Of The Week tussle. That's an aspect, but it ignores the deeper threads. Can I just ask why you don't object to the Associated Press or New York Times horse race reporting? I'm basically reading your response as, "BORING! ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION OCCURRED WITHIN THE PAST 7 DAYS."
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Because the right has railed against it 24/7 using that term in a mocking and derogatory tone, and consequently it carries a negative stigma. Liberals aren't interested in playing along with Republican framing. Obviously.
Obama isn't pushing them away, because the vast majority of Catholics don't give a shit about this. The 'leaders' of the Church are far more conservative than its actual adherents are in the US and this has been proven time and time again.
Aside from the fact that opposing contraception is an asinine and downright irresponsible position, my feeling is that until they're willing to pay taxes, churches shouldn't get a seat at the political table. So until they pay in, they should shut the fuck up, enjoy their free ride exploiting their constituents, and stop trying to put the brakes on societal progress.
Sorry, what was that? I was too busy calculating how much I saved with the Bush Tax Cuts.
I been hearing about this, my University (a very Catholic one) has its panties in a bunch over this. Their worried that this may force them to offer birth control at the student health office or the student medical insurance (which they do not do now), honestly in my opinion it is irresponsible that they do not.
College students having sex? BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
Of course its not like their aren't clinics in the low income area surrounding my school that everyone doesn't already know about, but still.
College students having sex? BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
Of course its not like their aren't clinics in the low income area surrounding my school that everyone doesn't already know about, but still.
The reasoning offered for exemption for religious organizations is that they select membership/employees based on the religious belief.
But non religious organizations that are "religiously affiliated" or charities or the Notre Dame hospital system do not select membership based on faith. They hire doctors, nurses and janitors of all faiths and thus should not be able to impose their faith on their employees as they are not a true religious organization.
Yes. I can't think of anything else.
Zoe
Member
Introducing this requirement could cause their insurance rates to rise. So not only would they be paying for a service they wouldn't use, they're subsidizing it for others who would use it.
Not to mention that better access to contraception leads to lowering unwanted pregnancies and the amount of abortions performed.
Dude Abides
Banned
Shore up their reasoning? How? The conflict is "religiously-connected group required to do something that goes against religious teaching." How deep do we really need to go into the reasons HHS made its decision, and how deep into Catholic doctrine do we really need to go to understand their opposition? Not very in either case, because nobody is denying that Catholic doctrine does in fact teach that contraception is wrong, just as nobody, or at least few, deny the health benefits of contraception.
Again, they are not going out and ripping birth control pills out of students hands and stomping them in the ground - they are just not paying for them. With the plethora of cheap birth control options out there from pills to condoms, it's a moot point. That a woman would choose to put herself at risk of getting pregnant because her insurance doesn't cover $25-30 of pills a month, rather than paying for them herself, is silly.
And don't misconstrue - I am pro-birth control, I just don't think the government should be mandating employers cover them.
Meatpuppet
Member
Errrr... I'm fairly sure you're way off base there!
MorisUkunRasik
Member
Half and half
Member
I think you mean ObamaCuts now.
happyfunball
Member
xavi42 said:
For whatever reason, ignorance is brought up as a reason for criticism of a religion or religious organization. It may be best for you to understand that many come to this point because of a lack of ignorance.
- Status