Babbling

[Iowa_CubsFan]

Oh no, he is.

[GaiusIuliusCesar]

A lot of people say I'm intolerant of Catholics, I'd argue that they are intolerant for tolerating Catholicism.

[Gaius_Sextus]

This is the best Bill O'Reilly could do?!:

Father Jonathan Morris of Legion Of ####, Created By Sex Criminal, Lectures Americans on Birth Contr...

[redsilversnake]

---

GaiusIuliusCesar wrote:
The catholic church didn't "sell out the Jews" the catholic church is the reason why the Holocaust happened, they were the ones who preached antisemitism and spread blood libel for 1920 years prior to the rise of Nazi Germany

---

...Isn't this not possible? I have no idea when the church was founded, but I'm pretty sure it was after the council of Nicea [sic?], let alone J*sus' lifetime.

[rotanalebor]

---

Glodson wrote:

Fuck this administration. If the alternatives weren't so bad, I would consider not voting for him. Caving to pressure so that religious affiliated universities and hospitals so that they can deny women access to medicine is just asinine.

---

From what I've heard, the "compromise" unveiled by Obama today will require ALL insurance companies to offer contraception coverage to ALL women directly and AT NO CHARGE, without regard to where she works. The employer can chose a plan that doesn't cover contraceptives if they want, but then the insurance company will still be required to offer free contraceptive care to the employees directly.

Seems to me that this is actually *better* than the original plan because now even those women employed directly by the church itself (which was still allowed an exemption under the original plan) will be able to access free contraceptive care through their insurance company.

[Glodson]

"reads*

Urge to kill fading.

Read it again.

Ahhhh, I feel better. It seems well done. Now they can get it, but the organization can still say they aren't paying for it.

[Gaius_Sextus]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/democratic-concern-trolls-
and-religious.html

[rotanalebor]

They can try to bitch and moan about having to pay for contraception indirectly if they want, but it just make them look like extremists and hypocrites. Extremists because the ONLY way one could not "indirectly" fund contraception is to make contraception illegal for everyone always. And hypocrites because, gosh, I don't remember bishops across the country threatening to boycott paying taxes that indirectly funded a war that the Vatican called "immoral, risky and a 'crime against peace.'" I guess for Timothy Dolan et al, slaughtering tens of thousands of brown people is only a minor sin compared to allowing women to fuck without getting pregnant.

[GaiusIuliusCesar]

If you want to be technical about it the anti semetic line comes from the gospel of Paul, and Paul died in 67AD.

The catholic church didn't change its doctrine about that until Vatican 2 in the 60's, well after everyone learned about the horror of the Holocaust and the Vatican's complicity in it.

[GaiusIuliusCesar]

Its a cynical ploy to attempt to win support and credibility for an institution that has rightfully lost both.

[GinaSzanboti]

"They are professionally unreasonable." 

[Jingai]

---

Saddy wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

 The issue however is that it is not stopping you from getting access to those services. It is

rather preventing the Church from exercising it's right to freely practice its religion. Further, it

is compelling other people who pay into those plans to have their funds go towards this very narrow

range of services that they object to.

  Once you establish that sort of condition, where the free exercise of religion is now subject to

government mandates, you a)violate the First Amendment of the Constitution (no surprise there for the Obama regime),

b) open up all manner of issues with that sort of precedent, such as conscientious objects no longer receiving selective

service deferments. There would be no way to stop someone from saying that they have an individual right to

get a BLT on a Saturday, so now the Kosher deli in the neighborhood has to do that. The Amish have to drive Chevy Volts

with the rest of us, because horse drawn carts are cruel to the animals. Mormons have to serve full strength beer.

Mosques have to have a "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" policy as a public place.

  The other big misconception, your insurance isn't yours alone, your insurance is an extension of a pool of users.

The exception would be an individually purchased policy, there is a reason why it is called group insurance.

---

um, no. he is not forcing the catholic church to do anything, because ya know, hospitals and universities aren't churches. no one is preventing catholics from practicing their religion.

how do you justify the a catholic hospital not covering birth control, hysterectomy or mastectomy, but covering fertility treatments, in vitro, and treatments for erectile dysfunction? if we shouldn't be meddling in affairs of reproduction, then how are some ok and others not? seems kinda hypocritical to me.

---

  It isn't hypocritical at all actually. The Catholic Church objection is based on having to provide coverage and pay for

services which prevent conception. Treats such as in vitro fertilization, erectile dysfunction or other fertility treatments

do not prevent conception, but rather assist in it, thus it is not hypcritical of the Catholic Church to include coverage

of such treatments or pay for them.

[Jingai]

 Free condoms at a planned parenthood, or even a buck at a vending machine in a bar bathroom is prohibitively expensive?

Oh, just looking over the costs associated with Planned Parenthood, the various forms range from 15 dollars a month

for pills, to roughly 900 dollars for a three year implanted device. Oh, I would be remiss to not mention the prohibitively

expensive free exams and birth control.

  Churches have quite a few powers that other groups do not typically enjoy, based on their religious beliefs,

including the sanctity of the confessional. The Government is in fact denying the Church the authority to practice

the tenets of its faith as it deems fit, if anything the government is violating the establishment and exercise clause.

Faith is the only reason needed under the Constitution, which is still supreme law of the land, despite the best efforts

of President Foodstamp and his cronies. Again, there is nothing that is stopping anyone from obtaining these services,

the issue is if the Church will have to violate its religious beliefs and be compelled to pay for these services.

[Jingai]

 Actually, he didn't cave at all. President Obama just engaged in a bit of sophistry.

What he actually said was that the Church wouldn't have to pay for the services, but the

insurance company would still have to provide the services for free. Now, if you actually

take the time to think about that, the Church is still paying the insurance company to provide

the policy, and the insurance company is still under the mandate to provide the services for free.

Nothing has changed, President Obama has just decided to, in effect, launder the money

through a mandate on insurance companies, as opposed to making it a policy directly naming

the Church.

[GaiusIuliusCesar]

Its remarkable to me how casually you accused the commander in chief of committing a felony. It reminds me of the people who used to chant that president bush was a war criminal for enforcing our weapons inspection treaties.

As I said at the outset, and as I noticed you never directly responded to me... I will reiterate. American tax money, which constitutionally should never go to any religious organization, is given to these institutions to support their charitable work, they are also tax exempt. If it were up to me they would be cut off and forced to pay the same taxes as every other multi national corporation, which is what the catholic church is. Its also a rouge state that shelters internationally wanted pedophiles and only exists because of the policies of fascist Italy. Bur that aside, religious organizations are not exempt from labor laws, this is a labor law. They can't deny healthcare coverage that's required of them by the same state that funds them.

I don't care if god drops out of the sky and tells them to break the law, if they do that, you lock them up in cages. I refuse to accept any compromise on the matter, Obama is an utter wimp on this issue. And I have nothing but contempt for the theocratic fools who are raising Cain about this. Like it or not we are a country of laws, not clerics.

[NaBraniel]

---

GaiusIuliusCesar wrote:
Its remarkable to me how casually you accused the commander in chief of committing a felony. It reminds me of the people who used to chant that president bush was a war criminal for enforcing our weapons inspection treaties.

As I said at the outset, and as I noticed you never directly responded to me... I will reiterate. American tax money, which constitutionally should never go to any religious organization, is given to these institutions to support their charitable work, they are also tax exempt. If it were up to me they would be cut off and forced to pay the same taxes as every other multi national corporation, which is what the catholic church is. Its also a rouge state that shelters internationally wanted pedophiles and only exists because of the policies of fascist Italy. Bur that aside, religious organizations are not exempt from labor laws, this is a labor law. They can't deny healthcare coverage that's required of them by the same state that funds them.

I don't care if god drops out of the sky and tells them to break the law, if they do that, you lock them up in cages. I refuse to accept any compromise on the matter, Obama is an utter wimp on this issue. And I have nothing but contempt for the theocratic fools who are raising Cain about this. Like it or not we are a country of laws, not clerics.

---

How is this thread even this long if you've made this point before earlier? 

There is nothing to say beyond this. In no way should this be a "thing."

[Galaxian]

I bet if altar boys could get pregnant, the Church would be less opposed...

[GaiusIuliusCesar]

Its a thing because the conservative on ASMB who always claim they aren't sexist, homophobic, religious extremists. Seem totally willing to defend people who fit that description and side with them in the "culture war" against all the things they claim to believe in, ie religious plurality, gay rights, and contraceptive rights.

Really there are two explanations, one that they really are social cons and are too chicken sh1t to admit it because they would be hated pretty much across the board, or that they are partisan hacks to the nth degree and would support Osama bin Laden's walking corpse if it had an R next to its name.

[GinaSzanboti]

Ozombie bin Laden? oO

[Jingai]

  It would seem a lesson in the Constitution is needed, again.

  The Constitution does not prohibit Congress from sending money to a church or other charity run by a church.

In fact, the Constitution simply states that Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, shall originate

all spending. The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from declaring a Church or religion to the

be official religion of the United States of America.

  The PPACA is not a labor law. The PPACA is actually a commerce bill, passed under the authority of the commerce

clause, which is the source of the lawsuits contesting the individual mandate.

[Saddy]

---

Jingai wrote:

---

Saddy wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

 The issue however is that it is not stopping you from getting access to those services. It is

rather preventing the Church from exercising it's right to freely practice its religion. Further, it

is compelling other people who pay into those plans to have their funds go towards this very narrow

range of services that they object to.

  Once you establish that sort of condition, where the free exercise of religion is now subject to

government mandates, you a)violate the First Amendment of the Constitution (no surprise there for the Obama regime),

b) open up all manner of issues with that sort of precedent, such as conscientious objects no longer receiving selective

service deferments. There would be no way to stop someone from saying that they have an individual right to

get a BLT on a Saturday, so now the Kosher deli in the neighborhood has to do that. The Amish have to drive Chevy Volts

with the rest of us, because horse drawn carts are cruel to the animals. Mormons have to serve full strength beer.

Mosques have to have a "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" policy as a public place.

  The other big misconception, your insurance isn't yours alone, your insurance is an extension of a pool of users.

The exception would be an individually purchased policy, there is a reason why it is called group insurance.

---

um, no. he is not forcing the catholic church to do anything, because ya know, hospitals and universities aren't churches. no one is preventing catholics from practicing their religion.

how do you justify the a catholic hospital not covering birth control, hysterectomy or mastectomy, but covering fertility treatments, in vitro, and treatments for erectile dysfunction? if we shouldn't be meddling in affairs of reproduction, then how are some ok and others not? seems kinda hypocritical to me.

---

  It isn't hypocritical at all actually. The Catholic Church objection is based on having to provide coverage and pay for

services which prevent conception. Treats such as in vitro fertilization, erectile dysfunction or other fertility treatments

do not prevent conception, but rather assist in it, thus it is not hypcritical of the Catholic Church to include coverage

of such treatments or pay for them.

---

no. it is. oh wait. i keep forgetting that they keep changing their tune. first it was, "we shouldn't be meddling in affairs of conception", now it;s "we shouldn't do things to prevent conception". now that old guys can't get boners so that they can get their wives pregnant, it's totz ok to meddle in affairs of conception. right. silly me for forgetting.

[Jingai]

---

Saddy wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

---

Saddy wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

 The issue however is that it is not stopping you from getting access to those services. It is

rather preventing the Church from exercising it's right to freely practice its religion. Further, it

is compelling other people who pay into those plans to have their funds go towards this very narrow

range of services that they object to.

  Once you establish that sort of condition, where the free exercise of religion is now subject to

government mandates, you a)violate the First Amendment of the Constitution (no surprise there for the Obama regime),

b) open up all manner of issues with that sort of precedent, such as conscientious objects no longer receiving selective

service deferments. There would be no way to stop someone from saying that they have an individual right to

get a BLT on a Saturday, so now the Kosher deli in the neighborhood has to do that. The Amish have to drive Chevy Volts

with the rest of us, because horse drawn carts are cruel to the animals. Mormons have to serve full strength beer.

Mosques have to have a "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" policy as a public place.

  The other big misconception, your insurance isn't yours alone, your insurance is an extension of a pool of users.

The exception would be an individually purchased policy, there is a reason why it is called group insurance.

---

um, no. he is not forcing the catholic church to do anything, because ya know, hospitals and universities aren't churches. no one is preventing catholics from practicing their religion.

how do you justify the a catholic hospital not covering birth control, hysterectomy or mastectomy, but covering fertility treatments, in vitro, and treatments for erectile dysfunction? if we shouldn't be meddling in affairs of reproduction, then how are some ok and others not? seems kinda hypocritical to me.

---

  It isn't hypocritical at all actually. The Catholic Church objection is based on having to provide coverage and pay for

services which prevent conception. Treats such as in vitro fertilization, erectile dysfunction or other fertility treatments

do not prevent conception, but rather assist in it, thus it is not hypcritical of the Catholic Church to include coverage

of such treatments or pay for them.

---

no. it is. oh wait. i keep forgetting that they keep changing their tune. first it was, "we shouldn't be meddling in affairs of conception", now it;s "we shouldn't do things to prevent conception". now that old guys can't get boners so that they can get their wives pregnant, it's totz ok to meddle in affairs of conception. right. silly me for forgetting.

---

  Explain how a moral stance against treatments which prevent conception, contraception, is somehow at odds

with supporting treatments which assist in conception.

[Gaius_Sextus]

So tell me, why should an employer be able to force their religious belief on me?

[bones2039]

No one is forcing people to work under the evil foot of any particular religion based employer.  Its not like those types of employers hide the fact they are religious institutions before they hire someone.

[Saddy]

---

Jingai wrote:

---

Saddy wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

---

Saddy wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

 The issue however is that it is not stopping you from getting access to those services. It is

rather preventing the Church from exercising it's right to freely practice its religion. Further, it

is compelling other people who pay into those plans to have their funds go towards this very narrow

range of services that they object to.

  Once you establish that sort of condition, where the free exercise of religion is now subject to

government mandates, you a)violate the First Amendment of the Constitution (no surprise there for the Obama regime),

b) open up all manner of issues with that sort of precedent, such as conscientious objects no longer receiving selective

service deferments. There would be no way to stop someone from saying that they have an individual right to

get a BLT on a Saturday, so now the Kosher deli in the neighborhood has to do that. The Amish have to drive Chevy Volts

with the rest of us, because horse drawn carts are cruel to the animals. Mormons have to serve full strength beer.

Mosques have to have a "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" policy as a public place.

  The other big misconception, your insurance isn't yours alone, your insurance is an extension of a pool of users.

The exception would be an individually purchased policy, there is a reason why it is called group insurance.

---

um, no. he is not forcing the catholic church to do anything, because ya know, hospitals and universities aren't churches. no one is preventing catholics from practicing their religion.

how do you justify the a catholic hospital not covering birth control, hysterectomy or mastectomy, but covering fertility treatments, in vitro, and treatments for erectile dysfunction? if we shouldn't be meddling in affairs of reproduction, then how are some ok and others not? seems kinda hypocritical to me.

---

  It isn't hypocritical at all actually. The Catholic Church objection is based on having to provide coverage and pay for

services which prevent conception. Treats such as in vitro fertilization, erectile dysfunction or other fertility treatments

do not prevent conception, but rather assist in it, thus it is not hypcritical of the Catholic Church to include coverage

of such treatments or pay for them.

---

no. it is. oh wait. i keep forgetting that they keep changing their tune. first it was, "we shouldn't be meddling in affairs of conception", now it;s "we shouldn't do things to prevent conception". now that old guys can't get boners so that they can get their wives pregnant, it's totz ok to meddle in affairs of conception. right. silly me for forgetting.

---

  Explain how a moral stance against treatments which prevent conception, contraception, is somehow at odds

with supporting treatments which assist in conception.

---

did you actually read what i wrote or are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing now? cause it doesn't seem like you read what i actually wrote.