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.

 

Selective Republicans, and the catholic church.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Odd, but not unexpected. First the "church", as if there's only one... The GOP says OH MY GOD! They want to impose religious "control" over others, oh really? People working for the Catholic church who are not at all Catholic like people in hospitals, were good work's are done, to secretaries, etc. The President was trying to NOT discriminate, and since Obama caved in allowing an "opt out" for the church and yet? Not good enough.

The GOP kept saying that issue add naseum. But guess what? When that same GOP came out when THAT SAME church hammered Obama in particular for NOT wanting to discriminate. Everything from food for the poor, SOME issues the Ryan budget would de-bowl pretty much ALL stuff, from the GOP? Not a word. It's nice to be consistent even if one follows certain policies say make no sense, and are anti-Catholic. Will my Catholic friends, as which I am a recovering Catholic and Republican knock off the crap that applies to one of the biggest corporations ON EARTH tax exempt status, and all. .We will see.

That would not be the case if up to me, A religion is one thing, dabble in politics and you don't deserve tax freebies. Want to see amazing (sometimes gaudy but pretty art) see the most extravagant museum on Earth? The Vatican museum makes the all other museums/art galleries, look like a barn, and a cheap one at that. So if able to visit before we tax these people. Do it, well worth the "ooh and ah's" Or that church can get the hell out of politics. The choice is up to them, and that clock is ticking.. This selective hypocrisy is seriously really pissing me off. And the attitude of the Republicans? Don't even go there.
edit on 29/4/12 by arbiture because: May be the wrong thread, but no other thread wanted me...




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

I don't remember meeting you here on ATS. If I haven't I should let you know that I am "Mr. Confusion." Correct me if I don't understand your opening post.

Odd, but not unexpected. First the "church", as if there's only one... The GOP says OH MY GOD! They want to impose religious "control" over others, oh really? People working for the Catholic church who are not at all Catholic like people in hospitals, were good work's are done, to secretaries, etc. The President was trying to NOT discriminate, and since Obama caved in allowing an "opt out" for the church and yet? Not good enough.

The GOP kept saying that issue add naseum.
I suppose you're talking about the contraception issue. (And many other denominations have joined the Catholics in rejecting the mandate, so it's really a collective "Church," not just one.) You know, I suppose, that the Church said "We pay them the salary they agreed to, they can do anything they want with the money, abortion, bone through the ear, whatever." Further, that Obama said, "You must pay for their contraception, even though you didn't agree to it in contracts and that it is morally repugnant to the teachings of your faith." And the opt-out? Ha-Ha, it is to laugh. There is no opt out for anything other than the actual church itself, not the hospitals, schools, or anything like that. It also doesn't cover Catholics who self-insure, run small businesses, or insurance agencies. The church still has to pay for it, even if it's not given that name.


But guess what? When that same GOP came out when THAT SAME church hammered Obama in particular for NOT wanting to discriminate. Everything from food for the poor, SOME issues the Ryan budget would de-bowl pretty much ALL stuff, from the GOP? Not a word. It's nice to be consistent even if one follows certain policies say make no sense, and are anti-Catholic.
You've got me here. I don't understand your point. Is it that the Ryan budget reduces government spending (which is unsustainable at this rate)? Do you think the Church has come out in favor of starving the poor?

Will my Catholic friends, as which I am a recovering Catholic and Republican knock off the crap that applies to one of the biggest corporations ON EARTH tax exempt status, and all. .We will see.

That would not be the case if up to me, A religion is one thing, dabble in politics and you don't deserve tax freebies. Want to see amazing (sometimes gaudy but pretty art) see the most extravagant museum on Earth? The Vatican museum makes the all other museums/art galleries, look like a barn, and a cheap one at that. So if able to visit before we tax these people. Do it, well worth the "ooh and ah's"
I'm confused by this "tax freebies" thing. You do understand the Government is not "giving" anything to the Church. The government is simply admitting that because of the First Amendment, they don't have the right to take the Church's money.

Or that church can get the hell out of politics. The choice is up to them, and that clock is ticking..
I don't understand. Do you think that because the Church is protected from tax collectors, they loose their right to speak freely? I agree that that's the general understanding, but no church has lost it's tax exempt status based on the words of a preacher in the pulpit.

This selective hypocrisy is seriously really pissing me off. And the attitude of the Republicans? Don't even go there.
Sorry, I don't understand this at all.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You have to understand that people like the OP wanted to create the public educational system to kick Christianity out of educating America's youth(prior to the establishment of the Atheist controlled Public Educational System, Churches generally ran education; and they where able to generate a higher literacy rate a hundred years ago when compared to the atheist, Marxist teachers of today).

These people tend to be psychopaths, and psychopaths hate things like Churches because of the morality they espouse. Psychopaths only understand the moral message as chains that restrict and prevent them from being them. So they resist in any way they can and engage in any rabid attack that they can.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


You're conflating the two different practices of respecting religious conscience and incorporating religious teachings into government policies.There's no contradiction here.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Honestly I'm talking about the selective dogma that is the current Republican party. Any church has the right to do what they wish. Do I disagree with the contraception issue ? Sure. It would be so nice if certain parties were as concerned about the born as they seem so nutty (IMO)) as the Catholics are about the unborn. Why I don't like the idea of abortion being a guy no matter how hard I may try, getting pregnant is at best close to 0% as possible.

Given the Catholic church is a patriarchal dictatorship, not even thinking women can be priests as if they can't be a representative of the risen Christ, yeah that bothers me, a lot. Want to limit abortion? So do I, and birth control WORKS. But then the men of the church don't have to worry about that, do they.

But my main gripe is that "the church" is so discriminatory against women who work for them and may not be any were near Catholic. But its the selective "buffet" and the pick and choose of the GOP that really chaps my ass. Oh, the church hammered and rightly so the GOP "selection" including the lack of concern for the poor, food stamp programs and dozens of other issues for which the Catholics have long since done good works.

Like me being a recovering Catholic because of my disgust at their attitude towered women, and others that is disgusting, and the hypocrisy angered me. But the Republicans? Not a peep out of them when the Republicans said not-a-word, when the church took the friken and noble stand. How friken "selective" and why I'm also a recovering Republican.

If the church, any church wants to play in the political sandbox, fine. It is (despite what some think a free country) they should lose all tax exempt status for a "corporation" that has at least 40 billion, w/a billion $$ dollars. Simple and to the point.
edit on 30/4/12 by arbiture because: add stuff



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by arbiture
 


You're conflating the two different practices of respecting religious conscience and incorporating religious teachings into government policies.There's no contradiction here.


Want a bet? Sure there is tremendous contradiction I also posted in greater detail on this subject. The GOP screams when the Catholic church does what they like, but is mute when it (the Catholic patriarchy) will say and do things noble. And the church does indeed do good works. Hell I provide free organic food to among others Catholic Charities, and the Catholic hospitals (usually) provide excellent care. I am not ant-any religion save those members who use dogma as an excuse. See my other post for more details. If they want to be political, thats their right. But loose the tax exempt status. And the Republicans? Yish...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


No, the conception issue is just one issue the Catholic church (and as a recovering Catholic, I am familiar with it) Its more then that its the idea ANY religion has the right to get into the political or similar arena. They want, and that applies to any religion want to do that they need to loose the tax exempt status that all religions have. Deal with faith NOT politics, but not both.

Or pay taxes' like everyone else. Period.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

Dear arbiture,

You're correctly pointing out one side of what can be seen as a two sided issue.

Just for a moment, switch your point of view to that of a church. "Hey, the very first amendment protects us from the government. You can't pass any law that interferes with our free exercise. We have that protection from the very founding of the country. You also can't tax us, because as one Supreme Court Justice said 'The power to tax is the power to destroy.' So don't mess with us, it's a fundamental rule. We also have the same rights as any citizen to squawk when we're upset. We get free speech, just like everybody else. . . Wait just a minute there, buster. You're going to order us to break our religious laws? You are ordering us to commit sin? Not a chance, we'll fight you with everything we've got including speeches and lawsuits. You've stepped over the line, trying to order us around, and we won't stand for it."

As an aside, this isn't about Church employees using contraception and abortifacients. The point is that the Church doesn't want to be ordered to participate in supporting what it sees as a sin.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by arbiture
 


You're conflating the two different practices of respecting religious conscience and incorporating religious teachings into government policies.There's no contradiction here.


Oh really? When any religion gets into politics, thats it for me. Take away their tax exempt status and watch how fast they change their tune. Not to mention THEY ARE demanding anyone who works for them, and they do good enough works and I contribute a lot of food largely, and medical services no charge.

But because someone is not a guy and can't represent God as a priest? Or non-practicing or Catholic can't have birth control because the "Church", (as if there is only one) who deny anyone who is or not Catholics birth control is ridiculous. I know a great many Catholics who did use birth control, in fact most don't have a problem with it at least the the dozen or so I know.

As far as I am concerned NO CHURCH, Islamic faith, Jew, any has the right to tell people what do not i work in a in-religious capacity directly, even in a hospital of said faith, and thats that. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT!! I wish it did, but only to a point.
edit on 29/5/12 by arbiture because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/5/12 by arbiture because: got annoyed, so added a few things...

edit on 29/5/12 by arbiture because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

Dear arbiture,

It's possible that you weren't given a clear picture of the Church's objection. They are not trying to make birth control illegal, and they're not trying to keep it from their employees. The employees can do whatever they want. It's just that the Church doesn't want to be forced to help them do it. Employees can use birth control, just don't expect the Bishop to reach into his pocket for it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by arbiture
 

Dear arbiture,

It's possible that you weren't given a clear picture of the Church's objection. They are not trying to make birth control illegal, and they're not trying to keep it from their employees. The employees can do whatever they want. It's just that the Church doesn't want to be forced to help them do it. Employees can use birth control, just don't expect the Bishop to reach into his pocket for it.

With respect,
Charles1952


Thank you for your kind reply. While I'm aware that birth control is and should be a choice, my concerns are those institutions such as Catholic hospitals who often employ non-Catholics and would be denied that coverage because of a faith issue. When it comes to health care to not cover something like birth control is discrimination. I know and respect the many good and often charitable works Catholic hospitals provide. But in the area of health care, their just another employer.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

Dear arbiture,

It's a pleasure (talking?) to you. Health care is an interesting subject. You probably know that there are some employers who don't offer health care as a benefit. Some offer it only to full-time employees, some offer Cadillac plans while others offer bare minimums. It is a benefit usually negotiated between the employer and employee and is part of their contract of employment. The employer offers what he wants to offer and the employee agrees or doesn't.

The Church has said that the coverage they will offer does not include birth control, that's just not part of the package. Even if they are, as you say, just another employer, the government doesn't have the right to determine what benefit package the employer must offer. There is no discrimination against any individual, everyone is treated the same, their faith doesn't matter. Men can't get sterilization paid for by the Church, either.

Even if there was no First Amendment, weighing the costs and benefits gives the same result. What is the cost if women don't get birth control paid for? Well, however much condoms cost. I understand they're basically free at some clinics. (Remember, if the pill or something else is required for medical reasons like stabilizing periods, the Church has no objection to paying for them.) So the woman has basically no cost, but the government intrudes into a very sensitive area.

At the moment I'm still on the Church's side on this one, but of course I'm willing to learn.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thank you once again for your kind and polite reply. Far to many believe in insults as a way to respond to those who don't accept what they say or disagree with. Such a polite response, despite our differences is always appreciated. I offer a full package health care for my employees, including part time employees.

I do it because heath care costs are obscene enough, thats one less people who work for me have to worry about. And it cost's me a lot, in fact it has along with other benefits are now greater then my salaries, and I'm not cheap! I also have enough money thank God to do so.

My complaint about the Catholic church is forcing their dogma on non-practicing or just non-Catholics who work for their institutions, largely hospitals. For me that is imposing Catholic doctrine on everyone. They are an "employer" and though I feel the government should stay as far away as possible from just about everything when it comes to employee rights and benefits I don't believe in ANY discrimination.

As far as "atheists" in schools,thats ridiculous, as teaching religious doctrine is not something public, non-religious schools should do. The separation of church and state is vital for us TO HAVE religious freedom. Or there is none as each public school can do what many used to, have a Christian prayer in a school with Jews, and others who did not accept such "indoctrination".

By the way, as someone who has lectured in history at the University level, I believe you can't teach history without including its impact in the subject of history, but its a fine line that should never be confused with "teaching religion as a subject it self" Frankly a great deal of histories horrors are directly part of history, and a few, very few but important elements that should not be ignored are as well. But it takes a good history teacher to separate history from religious preaching. Thats not as easy, but is important. I just wish people would not attribute any horror to a loving and caring God. Honesty would be nice, but for cowards who love to blame God for their hate.That so disgusts me.

The "church" may have its own dogma but they are still big employers and why should they pick and choose benefits when they scream religious bigotry? Hardly. No one is forcing anyone to "use" birth control, have an abortion nor should they ever be. But to scream religious discrimination is ridiculous. Its called equal rights for all workers. And Obama even backed down from a lot of the original package to attempt to placate the persons who consider what he did an abuse of religious doctrine. As for the church paying for "the pill" reasons other then birth control, I'll believe that when pigs fly.

They simply won't God forbid a women may actually use it for birth control. And condoms? Oh, wait men have to use them, and though were working on a "male pill" so far the effects have been rather dreadful, like sterility and an erection that can be fatal at worse or severe blood clots etc. Like taking viagra and having an erection that won't go away for hours. It can be very dangerous, and if a man has it its embarrassing but needs immediate emergency care. Apply ice and get to the ER, fast.

I had hoped Obama would have stood his ground but he was so hammered by the GOP who seems to believe in personal freedom so much, unless it has anything to do with Obama. Sorry, it is discrimination for ANY employer to hide under religion, and I find their excuse both lame and frankly immoral. For those who claim such moral high ground, I haven't seen them leading in this respect at all.

edit on 31/5/12 by arbiture because: added stuff



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

Dear arbiture,

I offer a full package health care for my employees, including part time employees.

I do it because heath care costs are obscene enough, thats one less people who work for me have to worry about. And it cost's me a lot, in fact it has along with other benefits are now greater then my salaries, and I'm not cheap! I also have enough money thank God to do so.
You are kind and generous, I hope your business flourishes.

May I ask a favor? I would like to explore this further, I think we are quite close in our positions and I'm enjoying this immensely. But because of an early morning appointment I have to fold for the night. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Dear arbiture,

This is an insufficient reply to your thorough, lengthy, and thoughtful post, but I would like to try out one idea that deals with a small part of your post.

Again, I applaud you for your generous provision of health care to your workers, but we know that not all workers are that fortunate. Some employers decide that they can't afford to buy any but the most minimum policy, some believe their employees won't need certain benefits. (The four-man roofing business may skip pregnancy care.) Some, no doubt, use it as a reward, a bonus to the employees they want to recognize and keep.

I think all these decisions are legitimate and show that the employers have various reasons for not buying the most complete coverage. If they can deny coverage for those reasons, why not for religious reasons? Is religion the only illegitimate reason for not buying full health care? Isn't that discriminating against religion?

It seems as though we allow employers to buy or not buy insurance for any reason they want. Why can't religion be one of those reasons?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   


Do you think that because the Church is protected from tax collectors, they loose their right to speak freely?


Yes, it's the law, no church is allowed to do political campaigning or they are supposed to lose their tax exempt status.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


If an employer is a religious institution, then its still an employer. Very often people don't give much thought as to who is signing their pay checks. The Catholic church, as a corporation is an enormous one. If one is to run any company under the laws of the United States, and each state or territory (where rules can widely vary), the rules for each "company" must be the same.

Religious institutions currently enjoy tremendous freedom, including freedom from taxes. On the surface of it, I have no problem with that. But when they branch out and become major employer's, they can't hide behind religious freedom alone. Since its a fact its against the law to discriminate against anyone based on religion, as it should be, it should also be a fact that an employer as large as "the church" can not pick and choses its acceptance of health care coverage. To do that is to discriminate against non-practicing or persons with out any association or belief in the Catholic faith.

I'm not trying to impose my views on others. But when your in the business big leagues, it comes with baggage. At some point the question may have to be addressed, are you a religion or an employer? The Constitution permits no state religion, and it pretty much permits people to be as wacky as they want to be. That line is crossed when you start hiring people to do a non-religious job in what is an original religious institution.

Thank you again for your kind reply, if I can help in any way I will try.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I should add, I've made enough money in my life to know one great truth. The most valuable resource isn't oil, or gold or even fresh water. It's the human mind and spirit. Anything I can do to give as many opportunities as possible, only makes me richer. Even though it may cost a lot of money, that's tough.

At the end of the day I see what were all capable of doing if we just don't have to deal with "the incidentals". At the moment medical care in the US is an obscene cost. Business owners would be amazed if they just removed that issue from their employee's plate. Then people do truly amazing things.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join