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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Stripping people of their rights? I didn't know anyone could be more stripped than the NDAA or the ACTA or the adding additional power to the TSA. The list is long. Don't forget a Republican signed all this in. Gee I must be mistaken I thought they all had Obama name on them.




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
When the Catholic Church starts practicing what it preaches itself, then and only then do they get a right to complain. They are a business and run themselves as a business. They should also be forced to provide mental health services so that the children of their employees can get help for the emotional damage the priests inflict on them.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


In related news:


Newt Gingrich stepped up his attack against President Barack Obama as he campaigned in Florida Monday, accusing the Democratic administration of declaring a “war against Christianity” with a new regulation requiring employers to cover birth control in their health policies.

blogs.wsj.com...


I bet Newt thinks Obama is a Muslim



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
For those employees of Catholic hospitals (who knew in advance what health care coverage was provided), I say; Don't let the door knob hit ya where the good lord split ya. Wish you well in your new job.

ETA: Not only is this a bad move by Obama, there is no doubt this would ultimately be struck down, just like the recent employment issue.
edit on 30-1-2012 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Maybe if the Catholic Church would claw its way out of the Dark Ages, it could focus its energies on complaining about something that matters.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
________________________

Anyone else find it odd that David Allen Zubik is
an only child ?, and himself doesn't have any kids ?
en.wikipedia.org...
. . . just wee bit odd and somewhat hypocritical that he's
promoting procreation.
? ? ? Lol

________________________



edit on 31/1/12 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Im catholic...therfore this automattically pisses me off



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.




Well BH, that is why we need REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT to decide what people
can do...
edit on 31-1-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Ive come to find out all religious people are deluded idiots.

So im glad that healthcare clinics catholic or otherwise are being forced to give the healthcare that all americans deserve,

I guess the religious shouldnt have turned their generousity into a buisness then. Would have prevented all of this.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 



Originally posted by Rockpuck
Damn. You are a miserable person.


No at all. I'm very happy. I don't understand why my position makes you think I'm a "miserable person".



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


Oh, I will bitch when people are being stripped of their rights, regardless what letter is behind the politician's name. But no one in this situation is being stripped of their rights. There is no right to deny birth control to one's employees. There is no right to choose the particular services offered through health care plans to employees.

They are all free to practice their religion and enjoy religious freedom.

reply to post by xuenchen
 



Originally posted by xuenchen
And that is still a "force" .....


We are all "forced" every day to do things. I'm "forced" to wear a seat belt or be fined. I'm "forced" to go the speed limit or be fined. I'm "forced" to pay my taxes, to pay for things, to respect other people's property, and I'm FORCED to respect other people's rights.

And Catholics are forced to stop pushing their religious beliefs down the throats of their employees.

I don't agree with all of ObamaCare. But disallowing religious organizations to pick and choose their employees' coverage based on their religion, even though the employees are of all faiths, is a good thing.

.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ToneDeaf
 


So, the writer of this article - about how nasty Obama is violating the holy Catholic conscience - is the same guy who refused to give the names of priests who were accused of molesting little children. Oh, we wouldn't want to step on the religious freedoms of these molesting Catholic priests, would we?

From your source:



In address to sexual abuse scandals, Zubik met with representatives of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, but was criticized by the group for not disclosing the names of priests who were accused of sexual abuse but never sued or charged with a crime.


Even more hypocritical than I expected.

I am ALL FOR religious freedom as guaranteed by the first amendment, but can someone tell me what right is being violated here? Congress has made no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I agree with this law. There should be no "religious exemption", period. Either make the exception on secular principle (for example, some procedures could be mandatory to cover and some not), or dont make it at all.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
To simplify this, for those who are choosing to ignore the constitutional issue:

Lemon v. Kurtzman

The "Lemon Test" is a three prong test of the constitutionality of a law, as it pertains to the "establishment clause".

Briefly...


1)Does the challenged law, or other governmental action, have a bona fide secular (non-religious) or civic purpose?

2)Does the primary effect of the law or action neither advance nor inhibit religion? In other words, is it neutral?

3)Does the law or action avoid excessive entanglement of government with religion?

If the answer to all three is yes, the law passes the Lemon test.
www.freedomforum.org...

In this case, it will be easily argued that the law fails both test 2 and 3.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover


2)Does the primary effect of the law or action neither advance nor inhibit religion? In other words, is it neutral?

3)Does the law or action avoid excessive entanglement of government with religion?

...
In this case, it will be easily argued that the law fails both test 2 and 3.


I disagree that it fails either one.

Please explain how the primary effect of this law inhibits religion. How does insurance companies providing preventative care to women inhibit religion?

Please explain how this law excessively entangles government with religion.

This law has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with HEALTH CARE - Insurance companies. No religion involved. Just because a religious organization chooses to use a particular health insurance plan, that doesn't mean it can dictate their coverage, OR that the health care law is unconstitutional.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You and I have been down this road before. I won't sway your opinion, nor you, mine. Ultimately, the decision lies with those who wield more power than you or I and I'm betting they could not care less what either of us think. Let's just leave it to courts, then we'll learn who was mistaken in their beliefs.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 





2)Does the primary effect of the law or action neither advance nor inhibit religion? In other words, is it neutral?


Yes. I can hardly imagine more neutrality than law abolishing a "religious exception".




3)Does the law or action avoid excessive entanglement of government with religion?


Considering that the law removes the question of religion from the scope of this legislature, the answer is yes, there is no doubt about that.

There is no way this law could fail the lemon test.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


You brought up the lemon test and said it failed 2 points. If you can't or won't explain how, then your position is not strong, IMO. But I am fine with letting the courts decide.


I do agree we won't change each others' view, but talking about these things is good, I believe.

Religion in the US, and especially the Catholic religion is a very politically powerful entity and they know it. They think they can push the government around by claiming everything is against their religious freedom, and have been doing so for many years. I am thrilled to see the government standing up to them.

In the real world, I can't claim that what my neighbor is doing is against my religious freedom. What he's doing may be against my religion, but he is also free to express himself... If I am able to freely exercise my religion, then religious freedom is fulfilled. Controlling what someone else does is NOT part of religious freedom.

.
edit on 2/1/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

But, if you were paying your neighbor's water bill, I suspect you would have an interest in his using that water to drown people.

As for your assertion that my claim has no merit, because I refuse to again waste valuable time arguing the minutia with someone who ... Meh, you're free to play that game if you'd like. I will not be joining in.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

I can't believe you are taking this position. Do you understand what this REALLY means? It means that most Catholic hospitals will have to close down rather than agree to perform abortive services (yes, the morning after pill is considered abortion by Catholics, and many conservative Christians). One out of every six patients in the US are treated in a Catholic hospital.
People are just using this as another way to bash the Catholic Church, as well as bash conservative Christians, and Orthodox Jews, who also believe that abortion is a sin. You may get many members to agree with you, but your position is nothing short of complete bigotry.
Furthermore, you FAIL to mention that if the Catholic institutions, not just hospitals, and other institutions of faith do nor agree with this, that they will be FINED for exercising their right of conscience.
You think it will stop here?
You're dead wrong.
As Rev. Niemoller said many years ago:



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.



Like it or not, Obama is really an atheist, who uses his hatred of religion as a way to complete his desire to turn this country into an atheist communist state.
The day will come when you realize that, but it will be too late for you. Then again, maybe you won't. Many people in Germany were very happy with the decisions made there during the 1930's and 1940's.

This also confirms why I left ATS last year in the first place. There are too many hateful posters here who relish bashing the rights of others.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A Catholic Hospital is a service provider for the community.

No. A Catholic Hospital is a CATHOLIC outreach program within the CATHOLIC CHURCH.


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.

That's wrong .. you've had this explained over and over ... It most definately IS a violation of their religion. I've told you over and over ... and apparently I have to tell you again ... Catholics are not allowed to participate IN ANY MANNER in artificial birth control or abortion (which many 'birth control' methods really are - abortificants). IN ANY MANNER. This includes paying for someone else to use them.


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

Forcing a Catholic Church outreach program to go against it's religion is definately a Constitutional no-no.


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.

There is no 'discrimination' against employees ... only against Catholics. It's a CATHOLIC outreach and they have a right to pay for whatever they want when it comes to employee health insurance. Those employees know when they agree to work there that they won't get their birth control or abortions paid for by the Church. If they don't like it .. they can go elsewhere to get free birth control pills or free abortions.

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

There is EVERYTHING here about practicing religion and having people of a religious belief not discriminated against while providing an outreach under the Church umbrella.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join