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.

 

Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats

Originally posted by Still

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
This whole mess is an infringement on every US Citizen. The government should not be mandating anything on anyone. Sad that it takes organized religion to stand up to our government instead of the people.





What is being mandated on anyone?



Really, did you not read the post? Have you read anything, watched any television. It's called health insurance. 30 million American's that currently do not have it are being told to get it. Employers are being told to provide it. Seems like a mandate to me. The onky thing I find more ridiculous than the question is that people starred your post. Good Grief!


Well, some people do not want to realize we no longer live in the Wild West.
Plus, America has it way too expensive. Did you know that there are health care items sold to American that are over ten times as expensive as provided by Britain or other developed Western nations?

Did you know that lots of British doctors that are after money and status more than healing are heading to America each year? Because you can sell stuff ridiculously overpriced there. (Their place is taken by East Europeans).

It all makes perfect sense - expressed in dollars and cents.
That is what the whole hulabaloo is about. Not rights.

Of course, if national health care is introduced, this branch of big business (which reminds me of the famous onehundred dollar-ashtray in D.C. in 1984) will fail. So they isntigate P.R. campaigns - still cheaper than losing all their undeserved profit. Pay a few millions to media campaings sayin' it's un-American to have national health care! Or, that it infringes upon religious freedom (read: freedom of the dollar). Try any old trick in the book. It's anti-Texan. Or, it's anti-Catholic. (Never mind that Spain and France and Italy - Catholic countries for a far longer time than American white Catholics also have it.)

Why don't you raise the same ruckuss about having to pay auto insurance?

Of course, philosophically that would be exactly the same. On top of the same deal, your Government forces you by law to conclude a private contract - for no set prices. Private prices. (Set by where you live sometimes, and not by your individual driving record.) Well, you may have a different philosophy. Such as Allah will tell you exactly when you will have an accident - and by the way, it is your responsibility to pay for any damages caused by your driving, so - corollary - the Government shall have no mandate to require you car insurance.

Only, it is simply common sense to do so. And the same with the national health insurance.
If you don't have an income, you don't have to pay. That's all folks.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
I think the biggest violation of religious rights is that Non-Catholic faculty and staff (and students) of Notre Dame are being forced to adhere to Catholic teachings regarding birth control in the privacy of their own homes.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Still
I cannot find contraceptive plans being included with insurance in any Catholic bible.

Catholics believe that Onanism is a sin. You know that very well. Their beliefs in both sin and contraception/abortion have been plastered all over this site. Example - EWTN sues Obama Admin And you have seen threads like these many times.

In fact I have seen and asked more than once exactly what religious freedom is being trampled and I have yet to see a factual answer.

Liar

Originally posted by Still
If you run a Catholic business and you cover my birth control in my insurance plan, how are you not able to practice your religion?

Asked and answered a dozen times already. See the opening post at EWTN sues Obama admin.
Go back and re-read. You already have that answer given to you ... over and over and over

Originally posted by Still
This is not a Catholic society.A hospital is not a church. That is just the ugly truth of it.

It's a Church hospital. part of the Church. You've been told that.

YOU ARE JUST TROLLING.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoonra
I think the biggest violation of religious rights is that Non-Catholic faculty and staff (and students) of Notre Dame are being forced to adhere to Catholic teachings regarding birth control in the privacy of their own homes.

That's simply not true. The Catholic church has NOT forced anyone to adhere to their teachings in the privacy of their own homes.
that's absurd. Anyone, anywhere, at any time, can get their hands on birth control and use it as they wish. It's very inexpensive and many times it's actually free. It's widely available and very cheap at planned parenthood, city clinics and even in gas stations and drug stores.

The only rights being trampled on are the rights of Catholics in the Catholic church to practice their faith ... in their own Church based outreaches (hospitals, orphanages, clinics, schools). Catholics are not allowed to participate in any manner with abortion or birth control. That includes helping others to participate in it. If they do .. they are guilty of 'grevious sin' according to their religion.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Catholics believe that Onanism is a sin. You know that very well. Their beliefs in both sin and contraception/abortion have been plastered all over this site. Example - EWTN sues Obama Admin And you have seen threads like these many times.


Which is different from what I wrote in the sentence you just replied to, isn't it? So...?


Liar


Then link me to any one post containing that answer.


Asked and answered a dozen times already.


Why even respond with that? When was it answered? Where? What good is responding without an answer?


See the opening post at EWTN sues Obama admin.


I have and it does not answer that one simple question.


Go back and re-read. You already have that answer given to you ... over and over and over


I am actually asking questions. You are responding but not answering. Why? That seems trollish. Do you not feel foolish trying to say these answers are all over the place all the while demonstrating how very well you have no idea what they are?

I am not looking to argue just to argue as you are doing. If you cannot answer my questions, do not bother responding to them just to be rude.


Originally posted by Still
It's a Church hospital. part of the Church. You've been told that.

YOU ARE JUST TROLLING.


I think you need to calm down and take a breath. Read a post from Charles and see how polite discussion goes. Maybe when I get home from work you can try discussing like an adult human being and put your name calling aside for a moment.

I understand religion is a heated topic but it gets sad when the defenders of the Catholics are the nasty ones. Calm down.

Asking how Catholics are unable to practice their religion if I take birth control is not an attack on you. If you cannot answer, don't bother getting upset and responding with NOTHING.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
They cannot well up and declare that funds going toward birth control are needed for protecting child molesters so they must use hyperbole like saying that this bill is a direct opposition to freedom of religion.

Nevermind that churches are exempt, or that religious institutions who elect to not pay for this can now declare that the insurance company for it. Nevermind that a vast majority of the actual employees in discussion here are in favor of the bill.

Nevermind the fact that employees can of course still decide to not use birth control.

Nevermind the facts altogether.

Makes you wonder why the only ones complaining are the far right and the church officials. The ones who have to pay.
- This has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with being greedy. It's actually a sacrilege to guise this issue as an attack on Catholicism. Call it what it is. It's a bunch of church officials crying because they would have to pay for their employees to have proper health insurance.

Did I miss something and this proposal has fine print stating that every Catholic must now masturbate each night @ 11 while planning their neighbors murder before they get a mandatory abortion? (That would be an attack on religion and frankly the only situation that suits their current reactions)
edit on 14-2-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 

Please forgive me if I tell you things that you have heard before.

They cannot well up and declare that funds going toward birth control are needed for protecting child molesters so they must use hyperbole like saying that this bill is a direct opposition to freedom of religion.
It's not hyperbole, it is an attack on freedom of religion.

Nevermind that churches are exempt,
only churches and not church institutions like schools. Also consider insurance companies and their owners. If a quarter of the country is Catholic, it's reasonable to conclude that this plan will require a quarter of insurance executives to write policies that are morally repugnant. Why force them to surrender their consciences and make them do something contrary to their religion?

or that religious institutions who elect to not pay for this can now declare that the insurance company for it.
The Church knows that it is required to buy a policy, and because of that policy contraception and abortifacients will be made available. And the insurance company gets its money from premiums they charge places like the churches.

Nevermind that a vast majority of the actual employees in discussion here are in favor of the bill.
Do we decide constitutional issues by majority vote of those involved?

Nevermind the fact that employees can of course still decide to not use birth control.
Sure, nobody has ever questioned that. It's not part of the Church's argument.

Nevermind the facts altogether.
No, the facts are important and should be faced.

Makes you wonder why the only ones complaining are the far right and the church officials. The ones who have to pay.
- This has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with being greedy. It's actually a sacrilege to guise this issue as an attack on Catholicism.
You have no evidence to support that and it has no effect on whether it's constitutional or not.

Call it what it is. It's a bunch of church officials crying because they would have to pay for their employees to have proper health insurance.
So, no Church employee has ever had proper health insurance? No, they're "crying" because for the first time ever, the government is telling the Church that it must actively do something that is against its central tenets and beliefs. An attack on religion. Why the change? What crucial government policy must be implemented that is more important than the First Amendment?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
So, no Church employee has ever had proper health insurance? No, they're "crying" because for the first time ever, the government is telling the Church that it must actively do something that is against its central tenets and beliefs. An attack on religion. Why the change? What crucial government policy must be implemented that is more important than the First Amendment?


28 states already had this in place and no one said a peep until Obama got involved and tried to spread it. I am sure there is a valid argument for why in there somewhere but I cannot help but wonder why those 28 states had Catholics that had no problem with this until now.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

You've raised a very good point (about the 28 states). I'm going to have to look at it and see what's going on. In the meantime, here's an article (from a Catholic source) saying that 17 of the 28 states have a religious exemption of some kind that is broader than the proposed federal one.

But again, great point. (Ooops, just had a thought. The 28 states thing doesn't change the validity of the federal proposal, but it does indicate that something went wrong with the Bishops. I wonder how they explain this.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Still
 


***** Update on the 28 States Issue ****** Catholic Bishops Reject Argument *****

Hey Still. "Still" around?
(I crack myself up sometimes.)

I found the Bishops' answer to the 28 state argument in this article ncronline.org...

Currently, 28 states have laws requiring contraceptive coverage as part of health plans. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 of those states offer some type of exemption, a list including Arizona, New York, Maryland, Missouri and California.

Whether exemptions exist or not, Catholic groups in all 28 states can avoid the contraceptive mandate in one of three ways, says the U.S. bishops' conference. These include self-insuring prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage completely or opting into a federal law that preempts any state mandates. Critics say the narrowness of the recent federal ruling would block religious groups from taking any of these avenues.
So, apparently, no state requires what Obama is trying for.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 


***** Update on the 28 States Issue ****** Catholic Bishops Reject Argument *****

Hey Still. "Still" around?
(I crack myself up sometimes.)

I found the Bishops' answer to the 28 state argument in this article ncronline.org...

Currently, 28 states have laws requiring contraceptive coverage as part of health plans. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 of those states offer some type of exemption, a list including Arizona, New York, Maryland, Missouri and California.

Whether exemptions exist or not, Catholic groups in all 28 states can avoid the contraceptive mandate in one of three ways, says the U.S. bishops' conference. These include self-insuring prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage completely or opting into a federal law that preempts any state mandates. Critics say the narrowness of the recent federal ruling would block religious groups from taking any of these avenues.
So, apparently, no state requires what Obama is trying for.

With respect,
Charles1952




That makes no sense at all. I need a more neutral source.
It is a mandate, you know, unless they choose not to do it?
How is that a mandate then?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

I'm really grateful for your persistence, your willingness to explore this with me at length. You're teaching me a lot.

I can understand your desire for a more neutral source, and I'll go looking for it, but it's a statement by the Catholic Bishops, and I wouldn't expect them to be neutral. They may very well be right, but they're not neutral.
By the way, the 28 states figure seems to come from the White House and no where else, so maybe they're not neutral either. But, as I said, I'll go looking.

On the "mandate" question, my guess would be that the state requirement must be met unless the group fits into one of the federal categories.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. I may not get to our discussion in the other thread tonight, but I certainly haven't forgotten you.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Dear Still,

I FOUND SOMETHING! Sorry, I got excited there for a minute.

Think Progress is a liberal source that supports the President on this issue. They quote an NPR reporter:

But as NPR’s Julie Rovner reports this morning, Christian affiliated groups already offer coverage for contraception in 28 states, eight of which don’t include the kind of conscience protections that are part of the administration’s proposed regulation:

But while some insist that the rules, which spring from last year’s health law, break new ground, many states as well as federal civil rights law already require most religious employers to cover prescription contraceptives if they provide coverage of other prescription drugs. (Emphasis added)
thinkprogress.org...
To me this says that the prescription contraceptives don't have to be covered if they don't provide coverage of other prescription drugs. So the Church has an exemption in every state if they want to use it, just don't cover prescriptions. (Then the Church could give the prescription premium money to the employee and tell them to get their own. Problem fixed.)

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics




 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join