Contraception mandate controversy rages on

posted at 1:55 pm on February 7, 2012 by Tina Korbe

When Obama administration officials reiterated last month that religiously-affiliated employers would have to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraception, they also granted those employers an extra year to comply with the mandate. No doubt they had hoped that the extra year would keep this controversy from too greatly infecting Barack Obama’s reelection effort.

As it happens, that might have been a miscalculation. The determination of a few will keep this in the public eye. In the first place, the GOP candidates have seen in this issue yet another opportunity to attack not only the Obama administration, but also each other. Just today, for example, Newt Gingrich compared Mitt Romney’s 2005 decision to require all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims with the president’s mandate. Romney, for his part, has also spoken out against the mandate.

Off the campaign trail, at least one group dedicated to religious freedom has made a signature issue of this. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has been hard at work to reverse the mandate since it first surfaced as a part of Obamacare. Last year, the nonprofit legal foundation filed the first lawsuits against the administration’s decision — lawsuits to protect Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic liberal arts school in North Carolina, and Colorado Christian University in Denver from funding, facilitating or paying for drugs that are in direct violation of the religious beliefs the schools espouse. That hints at the mandate’s likely final destination: The courts will decide on its constitutionality.

The White House insists that there are no “constitutional rights issues” surrounding the mandate, but Hannah Smith, senior legal counsel at The Becket Fund, says otherwise.

“The administration has seen the writing on the wall,” Smith said in a statement. “They know that this mandate cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. … So the administration is trying to delay the inevitable judgment day.”

Meanwhile, as of 1 p.m. ET today, 24,067 Americans had signed a petition to ask the administration to rescind the mandate. The petition was posted to “We The People,” an application hosted by Whitehouse.gov, on Jan. 28, and opponents have until Feb. 27 to collect 25,000 signatures to trigger a response from the White House.

Supporters of the mandate have also mobilized, though. Nearly 12,000 pro-mandate Americans have signed a petition to request the administration to “stand strong” on it. That petition was posted to “We The People” on Feb. 3, so supporters have until March 3 to collect enough signatures to trigger a White House response.

The issue is interesting for the way it has divided support and opposition along somewhat unpredictable lines. Non-Catholic, pro-contraception pundit Kirsten Powers, for example, recently wrote a column that strongly chastised the administration for its decision.

“I’m not Catholic. I support contraception. But this is madness,” Powers wrote. “Regardless of how the courts rule, the administration has planted its flag on the wrong side of history on this issue. The government’s disregard for the fundamental right of freedom of religion is chilling and should cause all Americans concern.”

On the flip side, a poll released today by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that a slight majority — 52 percent — of Catholics actually support the president’s policy. That percentage dwindles among Catholic voters, though – just 45 percent of voting Catholics support the mandate.

It’s no secret that plenty of Catholics disregard the Church’s teaching about contraception — and that’s probably what’s behind the numbers in the PRRI poll. Once a person grasps the religious liberty implications of this issue, though, it becomes another matter entirely — as opposition from Powers and other liberals indicates. Perhaps the president thought he was politically savvy to threaten religious freedom by attacking an already-unpopular position of the Catholic hierarchy — but, by this, he’s bound to learn that Catholics aren’t alone in their desire to freely exercise their faith.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Destroy Private Hospitals, drive religion out of healthcare.

part of the plan from Day one of ObamaCare and the Progressives.

Hey, Catholic churches and supporters of Obama…….how did you NOT understand this?

He is the DOTUS.

PappyD61 on February 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Catholic Hospitals really aren’t that important in our overall healtcare system. No problem replacing the millions of jobs and beds.

acyl72 on February 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I wrote something about this issue on another topic:

Side note: that PPRI Poll on Obamacare’s Mandates and Freedom of Conscience is a sign of how pathetic has been the Hierarchy’s exercise of the Magisterium for the past few decades. I hope this functions as an alert call to the Bishops.

In any case, things, while bad, aren’t as horrible from an electoral perspective as the headline states:

A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception.
Among Catholic voters, however, only 45% support this requirement, while 52% oppose it.

Catholics voted for Obama by a 10% margin. If this issue limits Obama to 50% of the Catholic vote, it has the potential to seriously hurt him in a state like PA.

—-

I do believe that if the Bishops and the Hierarchy for once accept their responsibilities as the teaching authority of the Church that 45% can be reduced to 30% or so.

joana on February 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Just another part of the Constitution that this &^%$#@ is taking a dump on. Will any of our “strongly principled” GOP leaders open their yap and stand against this overreach?

search4truth on February 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM

This healthcare mandate is going to be the determining factor as to whether or not this country will continue to exist, as intended by the Founding Fathers, or fall into the perpetual decay of Socialism and Statism.

If it is deemed Constitutional … it will be the beginning of unlimited State control over the People. From this mandate, nothing is safe. Not the First Amendment and religious freedom. Not the Second Amendment and the right to bear firearms. Not the …

America will be lost.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

If there ever was a better time to pick up Latino voters – this is it.

And quite frankly, “Catholics” – whether voters or not is a moot point, though will be used by the Obama admin as “see…”

The Catholic Church dictates policy, not Catholic people. I chosed to leave the church due to personal conflicts, but respected the right of that church to make their rules and laws.

I do not consider myself Catholic, though was Baptised, Communed and Confirmed at St Francis of Assisi; because I do not adhere to the doctrine.

Thats the issue at play. Because remember – people like Pelosi claim they are “Catholic” – for political purposes only.

My father left the church after Vatican II – and at his death could still speak Latin fluidly. He felt they basterdized the integrity of the doctrine (end of latin, adding “others” to the roster)- as did a few million others.

Odie1941 on February 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Four More Years???

d1carter on February 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

As I’ve stated before in previous threads: ObamaCare is as good as dead. If it manages to survive the SCOTUS there will be the elections. If it survives past that, it will be picked apart like the rotting carcass it really is.

I view this story as just another nail in an already built coffin.

Turtle317 on February 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

America will be lost.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

No lost, just mislaid. We will have to take it back by force, sad to say. As usual, the innocent will suffer most.

swinia sutki on February 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Simple answer to your problem Bishop. Have the Obamunist and HHS grant you a WAIVER from the oppressive obiecare rules just like he has done over and over for his Union cronies. How hard is that ?

FlaMurph on February 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The headline misses an important distinction and of course the mainstream media trumpets the 53% figure but if you look deeper…

•There is stronger support for exemptions for churches and other places of worship. Nearly 6-in-10 (57%) of Americans say that churches should NOT be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost. Less than 4-in-10 (36%) say that they should.
•Like other religious groups, a strong majority of all Catholics (59%), Catholic voters (68%), and white Catholics (72%) say that churches and other places of worship should not be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

While I agree that the Church as got to work to correct the 52% of Catholics who support the provision for Catholic hospitals and Colleges, even those misinformed souls get it more correct when dealing with the actual Church as employer…still only 59% support for the Church being exempted is still way too low for anyone self identifying themselves as Catholic.

ironmarshal on February 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM

A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception.

Polls like this must have team Obama quaking in their boots.

e-pirate on February 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Damn formatting…this part should not have been in the quoted section…its all mine…

While I agree that the Church as got to work to correct the 52% of Catholics who support the provision for Catholic hospitals and Colleges, even those misinformed souls get it more correct when dealing with the actual Church as employer…still only 59% support for the Church being exempted is still way too low for anyone self identifying themselves as Catholic.

ironmarshal on February 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

This was already decided by the Supreme Court in 1879 with Reynolds vs United States.
It doesn’t matter what the Catholics believe. What matters is what the government feels is in the best good for society. Resist and watch the Catholic church be disincorporated and its assets and property seized.

Sebastian on February 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception.

Add the word “abortifacients” to the poll and take it again.

theCork on February 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Just a heads up… WhiteHouse.gov does not like Google Chrome (and maybe others?). I had to root around and find IE in order to register to sign the petition.

Humphrey on February 7, 2012 at 2:17 PM

This was already decided by the Supreme Court in 1879 with Reynolds vs United States.
It doesn’t matter what the Catholics believe. What matters is what the government feels is in the best good for society. Resist and watch the Catholic church be disincorporated and its assets and property seized.

Sebastian on February 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Yes. And clergy will be imprisoned. The Church is used to this, we experienced this in the Soviet Union and still suffer in China. Progressives (whether they call themselves Communist or Socialist) are determined to destroy Christianity. Everyone should know that.

theCork on February 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM

This is an issue tailor made for the President’s divide and conquer efforts.

The more chaos the better chance he has.

Speakup on February 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM

It’s great that JugEars and the gobbermint can dictate that! Gawd Bless America! (or something like that)
Next! For health purposes, all men will be required to wear tighty-whitey’s due to the affect other briefs might have on male sperm counts, and for the better safety record tighty’s have in general…protecting the Family Jewells. The TSA will have the duty and right, to stop and check any male not wearing a diaper!

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The priests should be denouncing Obama from the pulpits and to hell with the tax-exempt status.

In history, Catholics have put a lot more on the line other than having to pony up a few bucks to a corrupt, evil government.

NoDonkey on February 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Facile. There’s no ‘side’ to choose.
Faith-based organizations are not DENYING anything to anybody. They’re free to go murder their fetus somewhere else.
The GOVERNMENT however very much IS DENYING the religious rights and freedoms of these orgs. THE VERY SAME SORT OF OPPRESSION THAT DROVE THE FOUNDING OF THIS NATION by religious peoples fleeing oppressive regimes.

rayra on February 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

What is funny to me is….you can’t force free people to do something that they don’t want to do, especially if they believe it is morally wrong.

You can’t force a man to pay taxes, you can put him in jail if he doesn’t pay but while in jail he still will not be paying.

A law that is viewed to be morally wrong by enough people can’t be enforced.

Mord on February 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I’m curious what the ACLU has to say about this.

philoquin on February 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

So let’s go to the report and the first thing I don’t see is the breakdown of religious representation in the poll. They polled a random sample of 1009 individuals over the age of 18 and living in the United States.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/

These might be nice guys and a perfectly legitimate sample, but the first thing I noticed is that 2 of their 4 staffers have regular articles published in the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and ABC.

Considering the “98% of Catholics use contraceptives” came from a survey by the Guttenmach Foundation, you’d think we’d see a little more checking on these things…. and who is Alan Guttenmach – one of the Founders and a past President of National Planned Parenthood.

2nd Ammendment Mother on February 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception.

Polls like this must have team Obama quaking in their boots.

e-pirate on February 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Who’d they ask? A bunch of horny teenagers at the local Catholic school?

CurtZHP on February 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM

FOr the past 3 years, we’ve been hearing how smart Obama is. We’ve been hearing that his political instincts are so great that mere mortals, and Republicans, couldn’t possibly challenge him.

What we’re finding out is he’s a community organizer who believes he can do whatever he wants when he wants, without any repercussions. Usually, that’s what it is for community organizers, they go in and tell people what they have to do and, when they start, the community organizer leaves, never having to deal with the consequences of his actions.

So hey, Washington Post, quit telling me, via your polling, how tough it’s going to be to beat Obama. His destroyed the different constituents who elected him and will be bitterly clinging to his base, come election time. His base can’t re-elect him, and he’s called everyone but his base racists because they disagree with him. Sorry about that, Mr. President.

bflat879 on February 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM

What happened to the executive order that Bart Stupak got bought off with for the final vote to pass 0bamaHellcare?

Thank goodness that 0bama is not a far left ideologue, just ask him.

jukin3 on February 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Mord on February 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I’m curious what the ACLU has to say about this.

philoquin on February 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Nevermind. I checked. It’s as you would expect.

philoquin on February 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

This was already decided by the Supreme Court in 1879 with Reynolds vs United States.
It doesn’t matter what the Catholics believe. What matters is what the government feels is in the best good for society. Resist and watch the Catholic church be disincorporated and its assets and property seized.

Sebastian on February 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

this decision is important. for example, imagine that abortion is forbidden and there comes a religion that says that they are religious mandated to do abortions. then they would have a loophole to do abortions.
this goes to everything that we now forbid that is considered antisocial behavior. drugs, poligamy, public nudity and public sex, slaughter of animals in rituals, etc.

the scotus said back then:
“Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order”

and they were right.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Catholic Hospitals really aren’t that important in our overall healtcare system. No problem replacing the millions of jobs and beds.

acyl72 on February 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Surely you jest. It will be really tough replacing all those jobs and beds in only 12 months. After all, that’s all the time Obama has left.

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM

This was already decided by the Supreme Court in 1879 with Reynolds vs United States.
It doesn’t matter what the Catholics believe. What matters is what the government feels is in the best good for society. Resist and watch the Catholic church be disincorporated and its assets and property seized.

Sebastian on February 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Try again, I hate when people try to throw prior rulings around as proof of their own preconceived notions. Try to really understand the law instead of being beat over the had by your ignorance of it.

From the case you present “The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

Now as for the church’s position on abortion and contraception, this issue dates back to the very creation of the first books in the bible when one of the patriarchs refused to impregnate his brothers wife upon his brothers death. As such the whole basis for the Reynolds case is rendered inoperative since it can be shown to be a core originating concept of the faith. Also many ancient societies have recognized forms of killing an unborn as being illegal, even to the point of specifying punitive damages, to further support this position.

Thank you for losing, want to try again?

Skwor on February 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

i read this in the other thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytVF0BTrxWw

“Give consideration to your eternal salvation.”

Voting for a Pro-Choice candidate when there is a Pro-Life candidate on the ballot (barring extreme circumstances) is considered “cooperation with evil” and is self-excommunicating.

it reminded my was despite being born catholic, I hate the damn church. telling the faithful on who to vote is just despicable. they have no respect for democracy.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

How can you force someone to do something they are morally opposed to?
They allow conscientious objectors don’t they?

These are people in legitimate (not shell) religions not to take up arms in a war…they allow missionaries not to be drafted.

The Government has allowed a number of “exceptions” to laws, why I even hear they allow businesses to opt out of ObamaCare…

The fact is, it would be easy to make an exemption on a case to case basis.

The good of the Catholic Churches far outweigh whatever negative impact people create in their fantasy dreams…

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I do believe that if the Bishops and the Hierarchy for once accept their responsibilities as the teaching authority of the Church that 45% can be reduced to 30% or so.

joana on February 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Unfortunately, it is the responsibility of the parents, not the bishops, to rear their kids Catholic if they chose to have them baptized Catholic. That 45% probably never stepped into a church after baptism but deem themselves Catholic. these people are the group of Catholics with the label CINO.

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

The fact is, it would be easy to make an exemption on a case to case basis.

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 2:43 PM

It would probably be easier just to trash Obamacare and start all over again…and keep Pelosi’s hands out of the pie.

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Found out that the protestant denomination I am apart of has joined others through the NEA (National Evangelical Association) has also come alongside the RCC in suing the Government over this mandate as a 1st amendment issue.

PuritanD71 on February 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

joana on February 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Unfortunately, it is the responsibility of the parents, not the bishops, to rear their kids Catholic if they chose to have them baptized Catholic. That 45% probably never stepped into a church after baptism but deem themselves Catholic. these people are the group of Catholics with the label CINO.

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

It’s the responsibility of the Hierarchy to exercise the Magisterium. Something that the United States Bishops haven’t been doing properly in a long time. No wonder parents educate their children to become lapsed Catholics – does the Church really cares?

joana on February 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM

It is unlikely that there are any constitutional issues here. In 2005 the US Supreme Court refused to take Catholic Charities’ appeal from a ruling by the California Supreme Court holding that Catholic Charities in California was required to include contraception in the health insurance plans they provide their employees.Catholic Charities raised the First Amendment issues and the US Supreme Court didn’t bite. The same happened in 2007 in a case from New York . The US Supreme Court does not seem impressed by the First Amendment argument.

plewis on February 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I’m curious what the ACLU has to say about this.

philoquin on February 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Something predictably inane and hypocritical, no doubt.

NoDonkey on February 7, 2012 at 2:53 PM

obozocare isn’t about healthcare. It’s about lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist CONTROL of one-sixth of the US economy, lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist WEALTH AND INCOME RE-DISTRIBUTION, lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist EXPANSION OF ABORTIONS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY, lunatic-left destruction of the Catholic Religion and every other Christian religion that opposed it’s dictates and unlimited lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist NANNY STATE COMMANDS and RULES for the American people.

In addition to being an insult to the US Constitution, obozocare is an affront to the American people. It must be removed, along with each and every lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist that supports it.

Our new president, along with the new Republican controlled House and Senate must, as their first official act, repeal obozocare, then tear it up into a million pieces, burn the pieces, bury the ashes and cover the burial site with 1000 tons of concrete.

TeaPartyNation on February 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Thank you for losing, want to try again?

Skwor on February 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Maybe you should read more than just Wikipedia. But if we’re going to cut and paste from there:

In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former “lies solely between man and his God,” therefore “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and “to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.

And if you’re going to use the actions of the Patriarchs to defend views on abortion and contraception then maybe you should read closer as to how many wives Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had before you denigrate polygamy.

Sebastian on February 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

We anxiously await your condemnation of those churches who recommended voting for Obama.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Our new president, along with the new Republican controlled House and Senate must, as their first official act, repeal obozocare, then tear it up into a million pieces, burn the pieces, bury the ashes and cover the burial site with 1000 tons of concrete.

This … unfortunately the GOP establishment doesn’t seem to see it that way.

toby11 on February 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

As our illustrious VP famously said, “This is a big f***ing deal!”

lonestarleeroy on February 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

“Give consideration to your eternal salvation.”

Voting for a Pro-Choice candidate when there is a Pro-Life candidate on the ballot (barring extreme circumstances) is considered “cooperation with evil” and is self-excommunicating.

This reminds me of a banner I saw people carrying at a pro-life rally: “Vote pro-life and gain eternal life.”

No. There is nothing I can do, no good works, that will gain eternal life for me (or for anyone else). It is the free gift that Jesus paid for on the cross, the gift that anyone can have by putting their faith (obedient trust) in Him.

From http://www.carm.org: “In great contrast to the position of the Roman Catholic Church, if you want to be forgiven of your sins, once and for all, then you need to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28). You need to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior (John 1:12; Rom. 10:13). You need to ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins (John 14:14), and trust in Him alone and in nothing that you can do. Remember, your good deeds have no merit before God (Isa. 64:6).

“Furthermore, if you have faith, it is because that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29). If you believe, it is because God has granted that you believe (Phil. 1:29). It is not because you were baptized, or have been good, or have been sincere. It is all of God. The Lord must receive all the glory for salvation because it completely and totally rests in Him. Salvation rests in Christ alone and it is received by faith apart from works.”

KyMouse on February 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

This is just one more assault in a long line of assaults on liberty.

Teh Won will continue to push until someone pushes back. BHO believes that the only reason the Soviet Union failed was because they didn’t spend enough nor control the peasants far enough.

belad on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

We anxiously await your condemnation of those churches who recommended voting for Obama.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 3:01 PM

you should worry more when the church mandates people not to vote on candidates that are not of their denomination just because their religion is heretic and by supporting him you are missing the path to heaven.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Hate the Catholic Church all you want. You are permitted to do so by the First Amendment. You do know that, don’t you?

But I bet you’d change your tune in a minute if the government figuratively puts a gun to your head and insists that you are no longer allowed to not believe, to be an aetheist – that you must believe in The State. I want to see you tell them they have no respect for “democracy” then.

PatriotGal2257 on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

History lesson: The Pilgrams did not travel on the Mayflower because religion was too involved in British govt. They traveled because The British Govt was too involved with their religion.

nazarioj001 on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

And if you’re going to use the actions of the Patriarchs to defend views on abortion and contraception then maybe you should read closer as to how many wives Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had before you denigrate polygamy.

Sebastian on February 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM

First before you denigrate the source why don’t you instead indicate how the information is incorrect, which you did not. Second polygamy does not equate to abortion, how many people you marry is not the same thing as killing an innocent life.

You are trying to use a ruling on a religious practice that is not doctrine and comparing it to doctrinal (you know a core religious belief, a belief that if violated will condemn you to that religions eternal punishment, of which the failure to practice polygamy will not even by Mormons standards. Also you missed the point which you brought up but failed to understand that the heritage of either issue are leagues apart)

Now back to what you keep failing to do. Argue the point of the issue, try apples to apples here, not apples to oranges. Also instead of weak attempts at using a false appeal to authority arguments (wiki which I did not claim as a source but do admit used) you should be trying to address the validity of the material. You last quote totally misses the mark and is relative to nothing of the key ruling. If you are trying to say the court has complete authority to rule on actions because of Jefferson’s quote then you really lack critical reading skills.

To end, the number of wives the patriarchs had has nothing to do with doctrine where the protection of life does. The Reynolds ruling was allowed and rendered because it was not a doctrinal issue but a religious practice only, i.e. and action the SC decided using your Jefferson quote that they could rule against. An argument of doctrine enjoys far greater protections under the constitution and just religious practices.

Skwor on February 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I really would like to see the cross tabs on this poll. Their overall sample is statistically valid, if it was truly a random sample. However, the individual religion identifiers may not be statistically valid if the sub-sample sizes are too small.

If they only interviewed 100 Catholics out of the original 1,009 sample, that is a statistically invalid sample size. But we don’t know because they don’t provide that information.

Until I see the cross tabs, and they are not posted at the PRRI website, I take this poll with a grain of salt, as I do any poll that purports to claim something as statistically valid without showing the sample size.

italianguy626 on February 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

So, no condemnation? Figures…

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The 5th commandment “Thou shalt not commit murder”

And if you’re going to use the actions of the Patriarchs to defend views on abortion and contraception then maybe you should read closer as to how many wives Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had before you denigrate polygamy.

Sebastian on February 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM

It doesn’t get any closer to doctrine and practice of one’s faith than that. Polygamy is not the same issue and Reynolds comes nowhere close to addressing the issue of a religion’s ability to practice it’s core beliefs.

In fact the constitution guarantees Christianity the to practice that commandment, heck it is even printed on the courthouse at the SC.

Skwor on February 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM

KyMouse on February 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

This isn’t a thread to get into theological discussions, so all I say is to read the Bible yourself and not trust the carm web site. According to the Bible, Baptism is a requirement for obtaining heaven, as well as other things besides just a one time profession of faith. The way is narrow and difficult, but not impossible.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM

He violated the rights of Catholics. But I did nothing. I’m not Catholic….
Wasn’t this the issue with Joe Wilson yelling, “You lie!” at the SOTU speech? I think Obama owes Joe and apology.

Christian Conservative on February 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Oh, and “give consideration” is a far cry from a mandate. But nice try.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM

There is no such thing as “free” contraception. It is not free. Everyone will pay for it with increased premiums. The question should be about the government mandating EVERY insurance company to provide free contraception. I am 50. I don’t need free contraception. Everyone should get the right to decline the “free” contraception. The liberals are making us argue a point about religion versus rights to contraception. Don’t fall for this false premise. No insurance company should have to provide FREE contraception. When will they demand free blood pressure medication? The liberals are setting us up for a fight about women losing choice. They need the women voters. Change the fight. It is not about contraception

stexas on February 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Typical. Any thread that mentions Catholicism brings out the anti-Catholic trolls. The trolls are ready to see America become a communist police state so long as Catholics are expunged as part of the deal. Of course for some trolls, the communist state is the primary goal.

theCork on February 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Why anyone thinks Mitt can win is beyond my comprehension.

Most issues he did the same thing in Mass. to criticize will be seen as sour grapes by most of the public. This will leave him with no real distinction between him and Obama.

BTW. This should go over 25k today on gov site.

Steveangell on February 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Yes. And clergy will be imprisoned. The Church is used to this, we experienced this in the Soviet Union and still suffer in China. Progressives (whether they call themselves Communist or Socialist) are determined to destroy Christianity. Everyone should know that.

theCork on February 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But the State is God. No other God may come before it.

Venril on February 7, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Axelrod is already looking for an escape hatch, and the Catholic Church had damned well better say “no thanks.”

Obama has made his bed on this, let him sleep with the consequences.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

It’s the responsibility of the Hierarchy to exercise the Magisterium. Something that the United States Bishops haven’t been doing properly in a long time. No wonder parents educate their children to become lapsed Catholics – does the Church really cares?

joana on February 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Neither the Majesterium nor the Pope can do anything if the parents don’t make an effort to get their kids to church or instruction classes. The church is only allowed to teach kids the beliefs and morality of the church IF, and only IF, the parents spend the time to get their kids to these classes. Stop putting the onus on the church for failing to get the message out. Place the onus on the parents who woefully fail to guide their kids in religious teaching and don’t bother to get them to churches where maybe, just maybe, the Majesterium can then teach them the ways of the church.

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Every single one of the Obama breaches of the Constitution should be talking points in the election.

1) The Mandate to purchase insurance.

2) The breach of the Separation of Powers by bypassing the War Powers’ Act requirement to get congressional approval for war (oh, I’m sorry – “Kinetic Military Activity”) in Libya.

3) The non-recess appointment of Cordray.

4) The First Amendment attack on religion.

What have I missed?

Incredulous1 on February 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

theCork on February 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Exactly how prohibition worked.

If you read the history, it was largely an anti-Catholic, anti-semetic movement.

True story. We Catholics in particular like to drink.

NoDonkey on February 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

No insurance company should have to provide FREE contraception. When will they demand free blood pressure medication? The liberals are setting us up for a fight about women losing choice. They need the women voters. Change the fight. It is not about contraception

stexas on February 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM

This is what comes from having the individual mandate. If you are going to require people to buy health insurance, you have to say what that insurance has to include. If you do not, it can include nothing and be bought for a buck a year.

I have no sympathy with the Catholic Church in this. They did not oppose Obamacare. IIRC, they generally supported it.

If they really cared at all about liberty, they would be fighting to abolish the whole thing, not trying to carve out further exceptions for themselves.

fadetogray on February 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I think we need to force muslims to subsidize the pork industry…

How about having Hindu’s subsidize a veal slaughterhouse.

Green_Bay_Packers on February 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

it reminded my was despite being born catholic, I hate the damn church. telling the faithful on who to vote is just despicable. they have no respect for democracy.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

You may have been born Catholic, but with that outlook on life, I doubt if you will die as a Catholic.

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I think we need to force muslims to subsidize the pork industry…

How about having Hindu’s subsidize a veal slaughterhouse.

Green_Bay_Packers on February 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Sounds good.

darwin on February 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Incredulous1 on February 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

How about Fast and Furious as an attempt to remove 2nd Amendment rights?
How about violating Arizona’s 10th Amendment rights in their attempt to stop illegal immigration?
How about the Czar appointments to avoid Congress’s advise and consent role?
How about his lying when he took the oath of office?

Christian Conservative on February 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Unfortunately, on this issue, the finger of blame in many cases should be pointed inward. There are a number of useful idiots who – unwittingly or not – helped Obama ram through these mandates … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on February 7, 2012 at 4:18 PM

This is almost getting funny if it wasn’t so serious. First the republican candidates make fools our of themselves with personal attacks on each other and give Obama a big boost. Then the Obama people do something this stupid and give it all back with interest. It is pretty obvious that if you lose 40 or 50 million votes that you can’t get reelected. It is also obvious that the administration will back off on this one as gracefully as they can but it is probably to late to save Obama.

duff65 on February 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM

If it is deemed Constitutional … it will be the beginning of unlimited State control over the People. From this mandate, nothing is safe. Not the First Amendment and religious freedom. Not the Second Amendment and the right to bear firearms. Not the …

America will be lost.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Actually I’m kind of looking forward to this mandate idea and might even run for President in 2016 so I can set a few mandates of my own:
– each person shall own at least two firearms
– each person shall own at least one Bible
– each female shall get implants for no less than C cup
– each “gay” male shall wear cowboy boots and plaid shirts
– each cheerleader’s skirt shall be no more than 3″ long

Oh this could get real fun.

Nutstuyu on February 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM

They should start forcing Hindus to eat beef, too. Silly religious people!
/

John the Libertarian on February 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

If this were not so serious an issue, it would be just desserts for the Catholic Church to be screwed by Obama, because these naive priests and Bishops had no business getting into bed with the Devil in the first place.

The students erupted against Obama visiting Notre Dame in 2009, and now it is telling that the students were right, the Catholic leader there dead wrong.

I say all of this as a practicing, lifelong Catholic. When you sleep with dogs, you get fleas, and all the “social justice” crap from leftist Catholics has forced the Church into this terrible predicament.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

King Obama and Her Highness of Health Care have yet to realize how deep they’ve stepped in it.

GarandFan on February 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You may have been born Catholic, but with that outlook on life, I doubt if you will die as a Catholic.

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I am atheist now and probably will die one. but this is irrelevant to the fascistic danger i believe the catholic church represents. our luck is that most catholics are very dismissive of their religion to the point of mockery. and good it is so, because if they took the fascist diktats of the church seriously, the situation would be dire.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Hate the Catholic Church all you want. You are permitted to do so by the First Amendment. You do know that, don’t you?

But I bet you’d change your tune in a minute if the government figuratively puts a gun to your head and insists that you are no longer allowed to not believe, to be an aetheist – that you must believe in The State. I want to see you tell them they have no respect for “democracy” then.

PatriotGal2257 on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

fixed to make sense…

I am an atheist, but i would not be ok with such thing. people have to be free to think and believe what they want even things i disagree with.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

you should worry more when the church mandates people not to vote on candidates that are not of their denomination just because their religion is heretic and by supporting him you are missing the path to heaven.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I can freely walk out of such a church with little or no consequences.

However, when I try to do so when it comes to governmental actions and dictates I disagree with, they have the power to confiscate my property and/or deprive me of my liberty.

A shame you can’t seem to see why that distinction bothers some people.

Cleombrotus on February 7, 2012 at 5:17 PM

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Are you implying that the Church has an interest in some sort of nefarious centralized civil government, or are you dealing in hyperbole as seems your want? The Church is centralized, but does that make it fascist, as you assert? It doesn’t demand control of private enterprise, or extreme nationalism, or even repression of opposition.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM

<How about the Czar appointments to avoid Congress’s advise and consent role?
Christian Conservative on February 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Does that include former drug czar and man of infinite virtue Bill Bennet?

plewis on February 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Are you implying that the Church has an interest in some sort of nefarious centralized civil government, or are you dealing in hyperbole as seems your want? The Church is centralized, but does that make it fascist, as you assert? It doesn’t demand control of private enterprise, or extreme nationalism, or even repression of opposition.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM

the church wants to yield political and economic power and will ally itself with fascist regimes like for example, the regimes of franco and salazar.
they do enter certain businesses that are unusual to religions like banks and health insurances. and sometimes they ask for exceptionalism to their enterprises.
one of the things that bothers me most is their constant railing against secularism. the opposite of secularism is theocracy and it seems clear to be that they wish it and it should be them on top.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM

the church wants to yield political and economic power and will ally itself with fascist regimes like for example, the regimes of franco and salazar.
they do enter certain businesses that are unusual to religions like banks and health insurances. and sometimes they ask for exceptionalism to their enterprises.
one of the things that bothers me most is their constant railing against secularism. the opposite of secularism is theocracy and it seems clear to be that they wish it and it should be them on top.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM

“Ally to fascist regimes?” Exactly what do you mean by that? And how does that make the Church itself fascistic?

There’s a Vatican Bank, but how does that make the Church fascistic? Even if they did enter into certain businesses that are unusual (some examples would be nice), how does that make it fascistic?

Even if it provides health insurance, how does that make it fascistic?

How does ANY of the above make the Church fascistic?

And it’s a CHURCH representing a RELIGION whose purpose is the salvation of souls. Why would that surprise you that they would think secularism would be opposed to that? And one can oppose secularism without advocating theocracy, except maybe in the paranoid mind.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

“Ally to fascist regimes?” Exactly what do you mean by that? And how does that make the Church itself fascistic?

these are the kind of deals the church does with fascist regimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1953

There’s a Vatican Bank, but how does that make the Church fascistic? Even if they did enter into certain businesses that are unusual (some examples would be nice), how does that make it fascistic?

no they own more banks, and when i mean own, i mean priests in the board of directors. here is one example
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-spain-seizes-savings-bank-cajasur-2010-05-23
the state had to pay for the bailout of that bank.

Even if it provides health insurance, how does that make it fascistic?

How does ANY of the above make the Church fascistic?

proof:

During the Franco years, Roman Catholicism was the only religion to have legal status; other worship services could not be advertised, and the Roman Catholic Church was the only religious institution that was permitted to own property or publish books. The government not only continued to pay priests’ salaries and to subsidize the church, but it also assisted in the reconstruction of church buildings damaged by the war. Laws were passed abolishing divorce and banning the sale of contraceptives. Catholic religious instruction was mandatory, even in public schools.

In return for granting the Catholic Church these privileges, Franco obtained the right to name Roman Catholic bishops in Spain, as well as veto power over appointments of clergy down to the parish priest level.

And it’s a CHURCH representing a RELIGION whose purpose is the salvation of souls. Why would that surprise you that they would think secularism would be opposed to that? And one can oppose secularism without advocating theocracy, except maybe in the paranoid mind.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

read above. just 50 years ago they where more than happy to impose religion in an european country. if they had the power, they would do it right here in the US.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

So your whole case is built on ONE country, Spain? OK, I’ll play along…

The Church had Concordats with many European countries going back centuries well before Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, communism, etc. In itself, it proves nothing.

At the time of Franco and the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Church had the grim task of deciding which whether to back Franco or the communist. It’s easy to sit in our 21st century living rooms and pass judgement on their decision to side with Franco, but there was no sitting it out. The Church had plenty of experience with the communist in Russia, and even during the Spanish Civil War there were plenty of atrocities committed against the Church. In hindsight, it’s regrettable they had to make a decision, but decide they did.

And under the Concordat, Franco only had a right to suggest Bishops and priests, but he didn’t have an absolute say. At the Bishop level, he could suggest but the Church could disagree and make their own suggestion. The back and forth would continue until both sides came to an agreement. But that’s an arrangement the Church had with pretty mush ALL European countries going back centuries.

As far as your quote regarding the Spanish Church under Franco, the Spanish Church had similar rights in Spain going back centuries. The Law of Succession in 1947 is the one that established Spain as Catholic under Franco, and it was approved by over 90% of the those who voted. Not surprising from a country that was always overwhelmingly Catholic.

The CajaSur Bank thing is interesting. The savings bank system predated Franco, and there isn’t any info as to when it was established that I can find. So neither one of us knows if it was established in cahoots with Franco or not. And yes, the government did have to bail them out, but if I recall correctly, Spain is no longer a fascist country. That WAS your point, wasn’t it?

just 50 years ago they where more than happy to impose religion in an european country.

But Spain was already overwhelmingly Catholic, and it was Franco that did the imposing. The Church had no power to impose anything. As I mentioned above, over 90% of the people voted for this arrangement. Hardly an act of imposing in any case. In fact, we consider lower percentages as mandates today.

if they had the power, they would do it right here in the US.

Ah, and now we FINALLY get to the crux. This leap of logic from the situation of Spain under Franco to the US today is amazing. You don’t seem to really understand what happened in Spain under Franco, and unless your implying that we already live under a civilian fascist regime here, and that the US is 90% Catholic and ready to agree with such an arrangement, than your assertion that the Church could somehow achieve your presumed “fascistic power” is nothing more that musings on your part, and totally non-provable.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 7:05 PM

So your whole case is built on ONE country, Spain? OK, I’ll play along…

its the most recent, just to show they did not changed their ways so much.

The Church had Concordats with many European countries going back centuries well before Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, communism, etc. In itself, it proves nothing.

sure they had, and the ones that did not had the concordat were considered heretic and there where wars because of it.

At the time of Franco and the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Church had the grim task of deciding which whether to back Franco or the communist. It’s easy to sit in our 21st century living rooms and pass judgement on their decision to side with Franco, but there was no sitting it out. The Church had plenty of experience with the communist in Russia, and even during the Spanish Civil War there were plenty of atrocities committed against the Church. In hindsight, it’s regrettable they had to make a decision, but decide they did.

nothing of that excuses the forcing of a state religion, catholic education and banning of divorce and contraception. they imposed catholic religion and morals on an already secularized population. saving their souls perhaps?

As far as your quote regarding the Spanish Church under Franco, the Spanish Church had similar rights in Spain going back centuries. The Law of Succession in 1947 is the one that established Spain as Catholic under Franco, and it was approved by over 90% of the those who voted. Not surprising from a country that was always overwhelmingly Catholic.

that vote was as democratic as the democracy under Saddam Hussein

The CajaSur Bank thing is interesting. The savings bank system predated Franco, and there isn’t any info as to when it was established that I can find. So neither one of us knows if it was established in cahoots with Franco or not. And yes, the government did have to bail them out, but if I recall correctly, Spain is no longer a fascist country. That WAS your point, wasn’t it?

the point is that the catholic church is involved in businesses that have little to do with religion.
behold the priest CEO

Ah, and now we FINALLY get to the crux. This leap of logic from the situation of Spain under Franco to the US today is amazing. You don’t seem to really understand what happened in Spain under Franco, and unless your implying that we already live under a civilian fascist regime here, and that the US is 90% Catholic and ready to agree with such an arrangement, than your assertion that the Church could somehow achieve your presumed “fascistic power” is nothing more that musings on your part, and totally non-provable.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 7:05 PM

my point was to prove to you that the catholic church was in associated with facist regimes and in the process the process they had no qualms in imposing their religion and morals on an already secularized population. i dont think they have a chance of doing it here in the US but i know they would if they had the power to do it. and this is why i dont like them.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM

its the most recent, just to show they did not changed their ways so much.

It’s been … 70 years, for crying out loud!

sure they had, and the ones that did not had the concordat were considered heretic and there where wars because of it.

You’re mixing your history here. The Concordats that we’re discussing now have to do with somewhat recent governments, particularly those fascists governments you’re so afraid of.

I don’t think the Church has fought a war since Pope Julius. The Holy Roman Empire, which fought many of the early wars against Protestants, wasn’t an empire lead by the Church. Later religious wars were fought between countries and not directly because the Church didn’t have Concordats with any of them. While many were loosely based on religion, their real basis was on rival families vying for thrones and lands, and evolved into wars by countries pretty much for land only.

nothing of that excuses the forcing of a state religion, catholic education and banning of divorce and contraception. they imposed catholic religion and morals on an already secularized population. saving their souls perhaps?

It wasn’t as secularized as you’re trying to imply. It was already Catholic. And any forcing was done by the Franco government, not the Church. Your complaint should be that the Church went along with it when it shouldn’t have, and in that regard, you would have a valid point. But that doesn’t play well with your accusations of the Church being the actual force which you need to support your bogus fascist assertion.

that vote was as democratic as the democracy under Saddam Hussein

90% of the vote is as “democratic” as you can get. But perhaps your point was that the vote was forced, or that little or no choice was available? If the vote was forced, why only 90%? You could easily get 99% or 100% if the vote was forced? Or, perhaps, the 90% was representative of how the people felt? But that doesn’t play into your perceptions so…

the point is that the catholic church is involved in businesses that have little to do with religion.
behold the priest CEO

The Church has been involved in banking predating fascism. Your whole argument was about a fascist church. You keep trying to expand your initial point to find other ways to find fault with what you hate. Try sticking to the point.

Now, if you want to start a separate discussion to make the point that the Church should never have been in the banking business going back centuries predating fascism, than let’s talk. But that wasn’t how this started. And it won’t ever support your original charge of a fascist church.

my point was to prove to you that the catholic church was in associated with facist regimes and in the process [] they had no qualms in imposing their religion and morals on an already secularized population.

Again, the Church had no POWER to force anything. The forcing was done by the Franco regime.

But your actual point should have been that the church went along with fascist regimes, and did nothing to stop them when those regimes imposed moral/religious laws that favored the church. But that doesn’t suport your charge that the church itself is fascist. You have not provided any proof to support that charge as of yet.

i dont think they have a chance of doing it here in the US but i know they would if they had the power to do it. and this is why i dont like them.

Really, you just “know” this, huh? All they’re lacking is this “power” that you seem to fear. Do you imagine the Magisterium is plotting it right now? Maybe they have plans in place just waiting for the opportunity to take over everything?

I really don’t mean to be flippant here, but come on, this is ridiculous. If you want to hate the Church, fine. I’m sure you have many theological reasons for your hatred. But this “fascism” and “theocracy” nonsense borders on the paranoid.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Hey nathor, I have to leave for the night since I need to get up early tomorrow for Latin Mass. I hope that doesn’t bother you too much.

Enjoy yourself. I think I’ll say a prayer for your tonight, just to irritate you. ;-)

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Hey nathor, I have to leave for the night since I need to get up early tomorrow for Latin Mass. I hope that doesn’t bother you too much.

Enjoy yourself. I think I’ll say a prayer for your tonight, just to irritate you. ;-)

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 9:06 PM

i am quite a blasphemer, i am sure i dont deserve it ;)

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Really, you just “know” this, huh? All they’re lacking is this “power” that you seem to fear. Do you imagine the Magisterium is plotting it right now? Maybe they have plans in place just waiting for the opportunity to take over everything?

no, they are not plotting this in such way. they know they are powerless. they just hope their envagelization drives that fail year after year start to work.

I really don’t mean to be flippant here, but come on, this is ridiculous. If you want to hate the Church, fine. I’m sure you have many theological reasons for your hatred. But this “fascism” and “theocracy” nonsense borders on the paranoid.

Kraken on February 7, 2012 at 9:01 PM

its not paranoid. those bishops care little about the secular state. they dont believe in it and constantly rail against it. google “pope secular”.
they are supporters of any regime that can give them power for their beloved organization and so happens that secular democracies dont help them in their goal.
but again, I know they have little power for me to fear them, but that does not stop me from seeing them for what they really are.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Those who claim to be Catholic and support abortion are not catholic, they are simply liars. Obama and his baby murdering supporters are forcing the issue to court to get a roe vs wade type decision that would not be able to be reversed for generations. They have little to lose and much to gain from their point of view. Their long term plan is to destroy America as it is and national suicide as practiced in Europe is the path they have planned where they have negative population growth and have largely abandoned Christianity. The magnificent churches are mostly historical architectural tourist attractions.

dunce on February 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM

no, they are not plotting this in such way. they know they are powerless. they just hope their envagelization drives that fail year after year start to work.

So the goal of the Church is to evangelize to get more converts, and they’re failing according to you. I’m not getting the fascistic thing here…

its not paranoid. those bishops care little about the secular state. they dont believe in it and constantly rail against it. google “pope secular”.

Again, the goal of the Church is to bring people to God. They’ve never hidden this agenda. They do constantly rail against secular society, as is their right (and yours as you demonstrate in constantly railing against the church) and as fits with their stated purpose and goals. You would then also have to make the claim that almost every religion out there that complains about modern secular and materialistic society is fascistic in nature. You could even claim the Dali Lama is fascistic according to that criteria. Ridiculous, no? So I’m still not getting the fascistic thing here.

they are supporters of any regime that can give them power for their beloved organization and so happens that secular democracies dont help them in their goal.

OK. Again, the same could be said about any organization, religious or political. But the “power” thing being given to the church is still silly. Still not getting the fascistic thing…

but again, I know they have little power for me to fear them, but that does not stop me from seeing them for what they really are.

Which, according to your original accusation, is fascistic. This is interesting logic which defies any reasonable definition of fascism or fascistic. It’s in the realm of personal opinion which, of course, you may have and keep to your heart’s desire. But perhaps, in the future, you should keep it there and not spew it out on the rest of us since you can’t support it.

But it’s a free country, so have it! I and others will always be here to correct you.

Kraken on February 8, 2012 at 4:05 AM