It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bishop: Obama Administration Is Telling Catholics ‘To Hell With You’

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
“To Hell with you!”

Yes, that's what Roman Catholic Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh says the Obama administration is telling American Catholics.....

The Bishop actually wrote that in the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh website: HHS Edict Will Force Catholics to Violate Conscience

This may be a political boondoggle for the Obama campaign.

Many American Catholics will vote their conscience this November.

The Bishop seems a we bit perturbed about the whole ObamaCare issue.

This could open up another "Constitutionality" question.


January 30, 2012 -- cnsnews

“The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’” the bishop said in a column posted on his diocesan website. “There is no other way to put it.”


"exemptions" not good enough?

This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone – not only Catholics; not only people of all religion. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens. It forces every employer to subsidize an ideology or pay a penalty while searching for alternatives to health care coverage. It undermines the whole concept and hope for health care reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats.

For our Church this mandate would apply in virtually every instance where the Catholic Church serves as an employer. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity by forcing Catholic entities to provide contraceptive, sterilization coverage and even pharmaceuticals that result in abortion.

There was a so-called “religious exemption” to the mandate, but it was so narrowly drawn that, as critics charged, Jesus Christ and his Apostles would not fit the exemption. The so-called exemption would only apply to the vast array of Catholic institutions where the following applied:
•Only Catholics are employed;
•The primary purpose of the institution or service provided is the direct instruction in Catholic belief;
•The only persons served by the institution are those that share Catholic religious tenets. (Try to fit this in with our local Catholic Charities that serve 80,000 every year without discrimination according to faith. It would be impossible!)

[color=gold]Practically speaking under the proposed mandate there would be no “religious exemption” for Catholic hospitals universities, colleges, nursing homes and numerous Catholic social service agencies such as Catholic Charities. It could easily be determined that the “religious exemption” would not apply as well to Catholic high schools, elementary schools and Catholic parishes since many employ non-Catholics and serve both students and, through social outreach, many who do not share Catholic religious beliefs. Such a narrow “religious exemption” is simply unprecedented in federal law.



Obama Administration Is Telling Catholics ‘To Hell With You’



Is This an Attempt to Undermine Freedom of Religion ??

How Many Votes Will Obama Lose ??




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   


A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease; mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to chose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.


There is a lot wrong with that:

1. Pregnancy is a disease ? sheer stupidity.
2 Making the employer pay? not having that.

So if the employer has to pay that means there is no need to steal taxpayer money for planned parenthood.
edit on 30-1-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




This could open up another "Constitutionality" question.


A Catholic Hospital is a service provider for the community. If they choose to provide health care insurance to their employees (of various faiths) they can't deny their employees some of the services offered by the insurance company. The insurance companies offer preventative care. That includes birth control.

No Catholics will be forced to take birth control, TOUCH birth control, nor will they have to look at birth control. They will not have to violate their conscience.

And there is no Constitutional question here, as far as I can see.

Of course a Catholic leader is going to be upset that the government won't let them continue to discriminate in the health care services they provide to their employees.


Is This an Attempt to Undermine Freedom of Religion ??


No. There's nothing in here about practicing religion.


How Many Votes Will Obama Lose ??


My guess would be fewer that he's going to gain.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
1. Pregnancy is a disease ? sheer stupidity.


Who said that? Birth control is preventative care. It prevents pregnancy. No one said pregnancy is a disease except your Catholic website that you didn't link: Catholic Culture



2 Making the employer pay? not having that.


I just love how educated you are about the topic before you jump in and post your opinions on it...

Employers are free to provide insurance to their employees or not. No one is MAKING the Catholics do anything.



So if the employer has to pay that means there is no need to steal taxpayer money for planned parenthood/


Oh, Lord... Why do I bother... :shk:
edit on 1/30/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Educated enough to read the link which apparently you didn't since were going down the personal attack
road.

www.diopitt.org...
edit on 30-1-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Like Benevolent Heretic stated, "Catholic hospitals universities, colleges, nursing homes and numerous Catholic social service agencies" all provide a (necessary) service to the general public, not just other Catholics. Therefore any "religious exemption" does not exist and should not exist.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
As a former Catholic...

Really? A church that systemically covered up child rape and hid the rapists from the law is really having a conscience issue... REALLY? What's the issue, not supplying enough lube to each parish?

Anything that is all pious had best not have any skeletons, or priest that love little boys' butts, in the closet. 'Til then, their moral problems should be confined to how many times they're going to have bingo and how many times they can sweat folks for $ with passing of the plate.

Derek



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Good for him!

I'll vote for him on that point ALONE!



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I think the "force" issue may be in the fact that everybody MUST have some kind of insurance or pay a fine.

Then I think insurance companies might be mandating certain things that are viewed as anti-Catholic,
hence forcing Catholics to comply.

I'm not sure.

But they must be riled up about something being "forced".



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
There is also an issue with Muslims and "insurance" in general.

Exempt maybe ?


Oct 14th, 2011 -- frontpagemag

To be sure, the PPACA does grant a number of exemptions from the requirement to purchase the “minimum essential coverage.” (Whatever that is — Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hasn’t yet defined it.) Prisoners, illegal aliens, and foreign nationals are exempt. In addition, there is a religious exemption. Under Subtitle F, Part I, Section 1501—the individual responsibility requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage—individuals must be “a member of a recognized religious sect” that doesn’t participate in Social Security. According to a January 2011 Heritage Foundation WebMemo, they must pay no Social Security taxes and receive none of the benefits, in accordance with Section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The religious exemption applies to any person who is a member of a “recognized religious sect or division” with “established tenets or teachings” that would forbid that person from accepting public or private insurance. Thus the Amish, who believe in taking care of their own elderly and don’t participate in Social Security, are exempt, as are Mennonites and Scientologists.


Muslims Exempt from ObamaCare?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




And there is no Constitutional question here, as far as I can see.


While I agree Catholics themselves won't be forced to come anywhere near birth control, their constitutional rights ARE being violated by being forced to subsidize birth control against their wishes. If they don't want to support part of an insurance package (and not all insurance supports birth control .. actually most don't, and most plans also don't cover pregnancy costs..my experience; 5 years as a health insurance broker)

You can't force someone to pay or support a private business decision such as health insurance.. the Feds have no right to dictate ANY of this to ANYONE. IMO (hey it's my opinion!) nearly all of Obamacare is unconstitutional. It'd be one thing if it was just flat out Government insurance or Government healthcare .. I get that, I totally understand it. But this neo-fascist entity called Obamacare does nothing but line the pockets of private insurers by FORCING people to purchase private programs, by law under threat of fines and penalties, under the guise of "insurance for everyone". What a crock of @#$&. It's Fascism.

And for those saying it's a "public" service: Yes. It's a public service by a PRIVATE organization. It's their hospitals. Their universities. Their schools. That'd be like me saying your business has no private rights because you sell hamburgers and the public loves and eats your hamburgers.
edit on 1/30/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Originally posted by xuenchen
But they must be riled up about something being "forced".


Yes, they are being "forced" to not interfere with the services provided to their employees by insurance companies.

I hope more religious institutions are forced to stop controlling everything they can get their hands on. Religion has FAR too much control over our society. They've been given an inch and they've taken 100 miles. Time to scale back the stronghold it has on people's lives.

reply to post by xuenchen
 


From your link...



Thus, under a strict interpretation of the Koran, Muslims are exempt from ObamaCare. However, the talk and the rumors are false—the word “dhimmitude” isn’t used anywhere in H.R. 3590, and depending on how PPACA rules are applied, there is at least an even chance that the scenario of American Muslims being exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance under the individual mandate won’t play out.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
While I agree Catholics themselves won't be forced to come anywhere near birth control, their constitutional rights ARE being violated by being forced to subsidize birth control against their wishes.


They are not required to provide health care to their employees. This is their choice.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well according to Obamacare they will now have to provide or pay a fine per employee. But it goes against Catholic teaching to not provide health insurance (most Catholics are Democrats too) so yes, in their eyes they do have to, they would however like to stick to their personal beliefs and not allow abortion of birth control to be supported by the insurance they provide. Nothing wrong with that as a private entity. Personally I always thought the Catholic stance on birth control to be a bit stupid, but it's their choice. It's certainly is NOT the Federal Governments place to make such decisions.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


To hell with Catholicism! And I was baptized as Catholic, so it's okay for me to say that. Does that make me a self hating Catholic? I wish I could have all those years back, at least nothing bad happened to me during my years in the Catholic school board.

Obama is throwing out a lot of votes if this is true



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Well according to Obamacare they will now have to provide or pay a fine per employee.


The fine is much cheaper than providing health insurance. They do have a choice.



But it goes against Catholic teaching to not provide health insurance ...


"It goes against Catholic teaching" is one of the excuses that I've heard from too many people who just want to control others.
If someone said, "It goes against Muslim teaching to..." how long would that excuse be tolerated?

"Practicing one's religion" just does not extend to controlling other people. The Catholic hospitals have a choice:

1. They can meet the religious exemption.
2. They can pay the fine.
3. They can provide alternative health care. (They ARE a hospital, after all - it shouldn't be too hard to provide health care to their employees).
4. They can drop the ridiculous excuse they use to deny preventative health care to their employees.

I'm sure there are more choices. Religions are expert at playing the victim.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




"It goes against Catholic teaching" is one of the excuses that I've heard from too many people who just want to control others. If someone said, "It goes against Muslim teaching to..." how long would that excuse be tolerated?


Damn. You are a miserable person.

Enjoy your government. I just don't want to see you bitching when a Republican is in office stripping people of their rights.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

edit on 30-1-2012 by neo96 because: nevermind



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



The fine is much cheaper than providing health insurance. They do have a choice.


And that is still a "force" .....

No benefit to THAT, IMO.

The fines an employer pays will eventually affect the employees.

Plus the employees will have to buy on their own, or pay a different fine.

I say repeal the damn thing.

The wrong people are getting the money as usual.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   


And this is why religious leaders make awful government officials.

They need to stick to what they're good at. Telling stories, collecting money, and scaring their parish. Citizens of the US have enough problems that we don't need to worry about Obama condemning us to Hell now


Many American Catholics will not be voting with their conscience. They are not living in the 1400s. If they voted for Obama in 08, there was a reason for it. Their fear of going to Hell or having to compromise their beliefs will not sway their vote. If they're that religious to begin with then they never even considered voting for Obama to begin with. Let's be serious here.
edit on 30-1-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join