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.

 

EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Yes yes, you poor poor Catholics and Christians are SO persecuted. Boo hoo.

Let me know when you are denied the right to celebrate Christmas and your Christmas tree is forced from your home.
edit on 10-2-2012 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Last I checked - Hospitals aren't churches, and churches aren't hospitals.

Wrong. Best check again.

CATHOLIC hospitals are part of the CATHOLIC church. Just because it isn't in a stained glass building doesn't make it any less of The Church then what happens in a building with stained glass. The Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic Orphanages are all part of the CATHOLIC Church and an outreach from the Catholic Church itself.

As I've said before when this spin is put forward ..... Salvation Army Bell Ringers aren't standing in a stained glass building when they ring their bells on Christmas on street corners, but they ARE engaging in their Church. Under your thought process, the bell ringers would have to stop because they aren't in a stained glass building and therefore all their donations are really income and not donations.

Absurd. :shk:



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Right. Sure. Let's just ignore the fact that this all got started before Bush too office.

Why let facts get in the way of a good Obama bash, right?

But, now that you've won - can you even bring yourself to say anything positive about the President? (I won't hold my breath. There's nothing the man can do to please the likes of you).



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Let me know when you are denied the right to celebrate Christmas and your Christmas tree is forced from your home.

Slippery slope. Take away one constitutional right .. the rest will follow.

BTW -
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
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

ETA -

Originally posted by negativenihil
There's nothing the man can do to please the likes of you).

Oh beezzer ... the 'likes of you' .... horrifying

edit on 2/10/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
So you ascribe religious tenents not by the church, but by the followers?


What? I don't know what you mean... I had QUESTIONS. I started with "I have a question".

WHO is the sinner? Who will God blame if the Hospital covers birth control and only non-Catholics use it? And if only non-Catholics are using it, what is the sin?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who will God blame if the Hospital covers birth control and only non-Catholics use it? And if only non-Catholics are using it, what is the sin?


Asked and answered ... see page one ... opening post ... Catholic belief on SIN ... if the Catholic hospital covers birth control and the non-catholics use it, then those who provided it (the Catholic hospital) are just as 'guilty' as those who actually use it.

That's their belief.

If you paid for someone to shoot another person, the shooter is guilty of murder, but in the eyes of the court in the USA so are YOU because you paid for it to happen. It's the same thought process in the Catholic church. If you provide for another to 'sin', then you are just as guilty of that sin.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by beezzer
 


Right. Sure. Let's just ignore the fact that this all got started before Bush too office.

Why let facts get in the way of a good Obama bash, right?

But, now that you've won - can you even bring yourself to say anything positive about the President? (I won't hold my breath. There's nothing the man can do to please the likes of you).

Oh please, hold your breathe.

The PRESIDENT tried to violate the 1st Ammendment.

You don't get parades for that. Even for his failure in trying to violate it.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The reason this discussion is so dumb is because in the next 10-20 years there will be few if any "Catholic" hospitals.

Catholic hospitals have been on the decline...and with the large health systems taking over across the nation, it will only be a matter of time when all hospitals are under one of these large health systems. At that time, the hospitals will have to adhere to the corporate policy and not the church's policy.

This has already happened for many "Catholic" hospitals who are now only "Catholic" in name.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
What happens if a creepy priest rapes a nun and knocks her up?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 
I'm just one tiny voice.
The president could care less for me. Fortunately, I have the Constitution that the president swore to uphold and defend.

Funny how it comes back to those that adhere the Constitution (like us) when others try to violate it.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


And where was your outrage when Bush did the same thing?

OH RIGHT! You only joined ATS in 2010, so we'll never know!

Shills/Trolls such as yourself ensure I'll vote for Obama in November even if it all boils down to pure SPITE for the right wing in this country.

Just like you all did back in 2004 - voted for Bush out of pure SPITE for the left, not the merit of the candidate.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Catholic belief on SIN ... if the Catholic hospital covers birth control and the non-catholics use it, then those who provided it (the Catholic hospital) are just as 'guilty' as those who actually use it.


So, would the entire staff of the hospital be "sinners" or is it just the CEO? Who would God hold responsible? I still don't buy that "the hospital" is sinning. The hospital is not a person. I think each person should be responsible for participating in sin or not. And if no Catholics are using birth control, then they shouldn't have any say.



That's their belief.


It would be a lot easier for me to accept this from you if I didn't know how many times you've argued against Muslims having special rules because of their religion.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Or why aren't the Catholic Bishops in Massachusettes outraged over Romney mandateing them to do the same thing???



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Because there was a Republican President at the time! A white one at that!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The reason this discussion is so dumb is because in the next 10-20 years there will be few if any "Catholic" hospitals.

Catholic hospitals have been on the decline...and with the large health systems taking over across the nation, it will only be a matter of time when all hospitals are under one of these large health systems. At that time, the hospitals will have to adhere to the corporate policy and not the church's policy.

This has already happened for many "Catholic" hospitals who are now only "Catholic" in name.


I'd fight just as hard for a "druid" hospital, a "muslim" hospital. . . . pick your poison.

1st Ammendment doesn't discriminate.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by beezzer
 


And where was your outrage when Bush did the same thing?

OH RIGHT! You only joined ATS in 2010, so we'll never know!

Shills/Trolls such as yourself ensure I'll vote for Obama in November even if it all boils down to pure SPITE for the right wing in this country.

Just like you all did back in 2004 - voted for Bush out of pure SPITE for the left, not the merit of the candidate.


When did Bush violate the 1st Ammendment?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



I'd fight just as hard for a "druid" hospital, a "muslim" hospital. . . . pick your poison.


HAHA...forgive me if I don't believe that...not one single bit.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by beezzer
 


And where was your outrage when Bush did the same thing?

OH RIGHT! You only joined ATS in 2010, so we'll never know!

Shills/Trolls such as yourself ensure I'll vote for Obama in November even if it all boils down to pure SPITE for the right wing in this country.

Just like you all did back in 2004 - voted for Bush out of pure SPITE for the left, not the merit of the candidate.
Just wanted to add, since when does being a newbie invalidate my response?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

When did Bush violate the 1st Ammendment?


I love it when you play dumb!

For the Nth time -

motherjones.com...


In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.


Bush could have stopped this, but according to YOUR logic, he also violated the 1st Amendment.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer
 



I'd fight just as hard for a "druid" hospital, a "muslim" hospital. . . . pick your poison.


HAHA...forgive me if I don't believe that...not one single bit.

*meh*
Yours to believe, or not. Doesn't affect me either way.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join