Bishops to Obama: No dice

posted at 8:40 am on February 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

After a long day of supposed “accommodation” and discussion, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops took a close look at the supposed adjustment of the HHS mandate yesterday.  Their conclusion?  It represents no change at all, and the bishops will press for a “legislative solution” to Barack Obama’s mandate:

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

The bishops note that the Obama administration never even bothered to contact them to discover what their true objections are, and what would satisfy them.  The White House simply presumed to know church business better than the bishops and offered an “accommodation” that is anything but.  In fact, that sounds a lot like the process that produced this mandate in the first place.

There are two broad objections in the USCCB statement.  First, they are opposed to the mandate in general for moral reasons, but that alone would probably take the form of a teaching moment for the bishops rather than a call to action.  They note that the overall mandate is “unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern,” and that they “cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.” But it’s that question that animates their activism, and it’s not just the fact that these religious organizations will end up paying for these products and services either directly or indirectly — which we’ll address momentarily.  The mandate forces these organizations to facilitate the use of products and services that violate their religious doctrine, under penalty of government force.  It’s exactly the type of government threat from which the First Amendment was written to protect religious practice — and that included the practice of religion outside of worship spaces.

Second, supporters of the Obama administration’s mandate claim that there won’t be any cost at all to pass along from this new policy, based on this analysis from HHS itself, included in last night’s QOTD:

The direct costs of providing contraception as part of a health insurance plan are very low and do not add more than approximately 0.5% to the premium costs per adult enrollee. Studies from three actuarial firms, Buck Consultants, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and the Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) have estimated the direct costs of providing contraception coverage.

However, as indicated by the empirical evidence described above, these direct estimated costs overstate the total premium cost of providing contraceptive coverage. When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries,the net effect on premiums is close to zero. One study author concluded, ‘The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money.’

When indirect costs such as time away from work and productivity loss are considered, they further reduce the total cost to an employer.

At the same time, LifeNews quoted a Blue Cross study that showed the mandate would cost insurers — and their clients — almost $3 billion.  So who’s right?  It’s Blue Cross, and here’s why.  Blue Cross estimated what the actual costs for providing the mandated products and services would be, while HHS projected estimates of long-term savings.  In truth, no one is really sure whether those long-term savings will come to pass, but what we do know is that costs will rise immediately as insurers have to pay for the contraceptives and abortifacients for which they will get no cost-sharing from the women who use them.  When those costs go up in the short term, so will premiums.  If the long-term savings that HHS predicts do come to pass, all it will do will be to avoid premium hikes far down the road, but the initial impact will force insurers to raise premiums to cover these costs — and that means the religious organizations that have to pay more to cover the costs of the mandate.  So yes indeed, they will have to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients despite the shell game announced by the White House yesterday.

The Obama administration’s “accommodation” was nothing more than a smoke screen intended to get rid of a bad political problem.  The bishops aren’t going to let them get away with it, and that means that Obama will still have religious organizations — and not just Catholics — demanding an end to the mandate and forcing a fight over religious liberty.  Don’t expect it to go on for long, because this will prove disastrous to Obama’s political support in the fall if left in its current status.  I’d give it a week, perhaps less, before we see a real climbdown.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Were those “older Catholics” those 60s leftover liberal cafeteria Catholic types? I know quite a few of those myself in my parish — they’re about a decade older than I am, and they all have the attitude that the Catholic Church should bend to their every prevailing social whim instead of being true to their faith to the best of their ability.

I hope your friend who seems to be younger saw this for what it was and tried to speak out in support of the pastors.

PatriotGal2257 on February 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM

This was about 15 years ago that this was happening. They most likely weren’t liberal at all in my opinion. Similar to many Democrats today not keeping up with the times and think the Dems are still the party for the working man:-) They don’t want to be confused with facts, you know the type.

These older Catholics just didn’t want to hear the Bible or Scriptures preached, just the Mass. These Priests were preaching Salvation according to the Scriptures, i.e. born again.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Obama thinks the Bishops are politicans like himself. However, he’s met a group whose principles are not for sale.

itsspideyman on February 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM

I believe that the Council of Catholic Bishops supported Obamacare, that is why Dolan is so ticked at being sold out.

herm2416 on February 11, 2012 at 8:56 AM

herm It seems as if everybody forgot about that!

KOOLAID2 on February 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Had errands to run and just got back on the thread. Thanks for for recalling last weeks thread with Packer Bronco. You certainly are keeping up with things!

Trafalgar on February 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I’d give it a week, perhaps less, before we see a real climbdown.

I would rather push Obama over the edge now instead of letting him “climbdown”.

redguy on February 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I don’t know anyone that can keep up with all that is going on. No, I didn’t know what your symbol meant. But I did look at your website you linked to. Very nice. I like Hardee’s too:-)

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

So, to the non-military mouths, AMVETS = Hardees?
No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 11, 2012 at 12:32 PM

The amvets.org website mentions that Hardees gave $10,000 to the AmVets. ;-)

Dasher on February 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Anyone else notice how delightfully troll-free these threads have been? Even they see how badly Lil Barry Downgrade blew it here. This could very well be a gamechanger in the election. The ads are writing themselves right now- “”Want to know the difference between ObamaCare & RomneyCare? Mine didnt force nuns to buy rubbers”. Etc etc etc

Chuck Schick on February 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Honestly, I know they’re effective, but how does that IUD not hurt like hell?

Look at that friggin’ thing…….looks like a weapon from a sci-fi movie.

Tough to get the scale of it though.

Tim_CA on February 11, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Huzzah for the US Council of Bishops! I just entered a comment on their website. If a left-wing Statist like Obama and his minions can do this to Catholic organizations, they can do it and more to any faith organization.

Think I’ll post a comment at the White House site too. This is just beyond unacceptable.

MochaLite on February 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM
So, to the non-military mouths, AMVETS = Hardees?
No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 11, 2012 at 12:32 PM

You and I are not understanding one another. My reason for mentioning Hardees was because I saw this:
AMVETS National Commander Gary L. Fry accepts a check for $10,000 from St. Paul Hardees and MRG Management on behalf of AMVETS Healing Heroes.

Don’t be so quick to assume things. I’m on the Right side and have been as far as I can remember:-) You are correct in that I’m not Military, but again non-Military mouth? I know you’ll never find any comment of mine to be critical of our Military, so please lighten up:-) I don’t even have those thoughts!

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Ed looking pretty sharp on CPAC!!

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Had errands to run and just got back on the thread. Thanks for for recalling last weeks thread with Packer Bronco. You certainly are keeping up with things!

Trafalgar on February 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM

No problem. I’m off and on too. Watching CPAC. Ed is on now with a panel.

Oh, thanks for saying that I’m keeping up with things. Funny since this is what Karl told me (LOL)
Try to keep up.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM

The amvets.org website mentions that Hardees gave $10,000 to the AmVets. ;-)

Dasher on February 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Thanks Dasher. That is exactly why I mentioned Hardees. Which I’ve explained better to Karl:-)

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

This was about 15 years ago that this was happening. They most likely weren’t liberal at all in my opinion. Similar to many Democrats today not keeping up with the times and think the Dems are still the party for the working man:-) They don’t want to be confused with facts, you know the type.

These older Catholics just didn’t want to hear the Bible or Scriptures preached, just the Mass. These Priests were preaching Salvation according to the Scriptures, i.e. born again.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Yeah, I know the type. Unfortunately. :-) They must have also put their hands over their ears during the readings and probably missed the entire point that the pastor, in reading the Gospels, was just trying to relate it to the present day. Every pastor we’ve had since I belonged to my own particular parish has done that. That’s his job, for Pete’s sake!

I am far too impatient with people like this and I know quite a few. Someone doesn’t like what the Catholic Church teaches? Leave. There are plenty of other churches around that pander to their ilk and will say what they want to hear. Or if not, form a church that does. But quit with the “Me, me, me … I don’t like that the Catholic Church is telling me I can’t do [insert issue here] when I think I should.”

PatriotGal2257 on February 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Honestly, I know they’re effective, but how does that IUD not hurt like hell?

Look at that friggin’ thing…….looks like a weapon from a sci-fi movie.

Tough to get the scale of it though.

Tim_CA on February 11, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Aside from that, they aren’t 100% preventive. One of my girlfriends got pregnant using one. That was very dangerous because she could have miscarried or the baby could have been injured. Luckily, the baby girl was fine, but just 4lbs at birth.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:35 PM

It isn’t just Catholics or religious organizations that HHS and the Obully admin are trying to foist this upon–it’s all of us. This action of “forcing” is the very kind of thing the Founding Fathers wrote limits into the Constitution to keep from happening. But then since Osquanderer thinks that our money is his money to spend, it’s not hard to understand why he assumes it’s our patriotic duty to pay for someone else’s contraceptive services. If they’re so worried about too many pregnancies, then here’s a suggestion: how about if the parties involved practice a little self-control maneuver that doesn’t cost anyone a penny (okay, pimps&prostitutes excluded): it’s called abstinence. And it’d be nice, as well, if our elected officials would practice a lot of it–as in abstinence from more spending and entitlements.

stukinIL4now on February 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

redguy on February 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I’m with you redguy: Timberrrrrr, look out belowwwwwww …

stukinIL4now on February 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

As a person of faith, I was concerned that the Catholics would let Obama off the hook with this supposed accommodation. So glad to see that they see through his deception and are still in the fight. If we value religious freedom, we need to stand with them.

Christian Conservative on February 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I am far too impatient with people like this and I know quite a few. Someone doesn’t like what the Catholic Church teaches? Leave. There are plenty of other churches around that pander to their ilk and will say what they want to hear. Or if not, form a church that does. But quit with the “Me, me, me … I don’t like that the Catholic Church is telling me I can’t do [insert issue here] when I think I should.”

PatriotGal2257 on February 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You know I think you find this in other Faiths also. Criticizm seems to come too easily; better to pick one’s battles. I’ve heard it about the Music, the Sermon, the Play and on and on:-) That’s just being picky. Doctrinal issues are another matter and if you have a disagreement there, read the Bible and then make a decision on what to do about the disagreement.

I have a Family member that you can’t discuss Religion or Politics with, LOL Yes, the person is a Dem:-)

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You know, I’m not sure at all that there will be a “climb down” by Obama. He’s so painted himself into a corner that he can’t come down. That bogus “accommodation” was designed to appeal NOT to bishops but to certain weak Catholics who actually wanted to be lied to so they could say, like Stupack, “we have a deal!”

So expect Obama to stand firm and have his lackeys crow about his “accommodation” to the bishops and, damn them to hell! if they complain now.

This was why the mainstream media was talking yesterday about Obama backing down. It wanted to portray Obama as a reasonable man, as someone who gave the lousy bishops 99% of what they wanted but, gee, those rats are still complaining. So expect the administration and its lackeys to attack the bishops as unreasonable. They want to separate in-the-pew Catholics from their Church leaders. God help anyone who follows the false messiah instead of the real one.

BillCarson on February 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Will Obama nationalize the Catholic hospitals if they close?

E9RET on February 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am grateful that the Bishops are taking this seriously and not accepting the Administration’s claim that they changed anything.
I think that there has been too much focus on the Catholic church angle in this whole discussion when this is something that clearly affects many non-Catholic religious institutions just as strongly. I would love to see the Catholic Church get together with several Protestant and Jewish organizations and file a lawsuit against these regulations. The more the merrier.

mdavt on February 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

When those costs go up in the short term, so will premiums. If the long-term savings that HHS predicts do come to pass, all it will do will be to avoid premium hikes far down the road, but the initial impact will force insurers to raise premiums to cover these costs — and that means the religious organizations that have to pay more to cover the costs of the mandate.

What about the freedom and liberty of women employees to choose a lifestyle that isn’t dictated by the religious doctrine of their employer? After all, the cost of birth control pills is significant.
Let me guess… the rights of women to equal treatment and protection under the law are inconsequential if a religious organization is involved. In fact, if the Muslims decided that mammograms violated the Koran, the readers of this blog wouldn’t hesitate to stand up for the rights of Islam.

It’s hard to believe that in the year 2012 that anyone questions the health benefits of birth control pills for many women. Let’s not try and find another way to challenge science.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

From lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist FANTASYLAND: “FREE contraception!!!”
Yep, in d-cRAT socialist FANTASYLAND there are NO COSTS to manufacture any contraception items, there are NO COSTS for packaging any contraception items, there are NO COSTS for distributing any contraception items, there are NO COSTS for visiting a doctor for any contraception prescription, there are NO COSTS for a pharmacist to dispense any contraception items…it’s all FREE, FREE, FREE in lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist FANTASYLAND – just like all that FREE crony capitalist taxpayer money, bailouts, pork and other socialist welfare boondoggles.

TeaPartyNation on February 11, 2012 at 2:07 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.

Remember this LIE from OBOZO: “if you like your current heath plan, you can keep your current health plan” ?

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 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

“”Want to know the difference between ObamaCare & RomneyCare? Mine didnt force nuns to buy rubbers”. Etc etc etc

Chuck Schick on February 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Umm…RomneyCare might not have specifically, but Romney still has a big mandate to Catholic hospitals by EO to explain away. This really doesn’t help Romney.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Bull…they can get cheap BC at any PP clinic or Health Dept… No one is stopping them from getting it. Vitamins are a health benefit. Why do I have to pay for them? I have other medicines required for my health, one of which I’d likely end up dying without. I still have to pay for it. Birth Control doesn’t prevent diseases. It isn’t HEALTHCARE. It’s license for consequence free sex…that’s it. Pay for it YOURSELF!

pannw on February 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

No one is stopping them from getting it. Vitamins are a health benefit. Why do I have to pay for them?

Science may not be your strong suite, but vitamins are not classified as a medication.

It’s license for consequence free sex…that’s it.

Yes that’s clearly the perception that has conservatives up in arms- the idea of providing healthcare that actually protects the rights of both single and married women to engage in sex without fear of pregnancy.

But it’s simply not that simple- for many women birth control pills lessen the pain and inconsistency of their monthly period. Why should the women who require birth control pills to regulate their cycle not receive equal protection under their health care plans?

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I would love to see the Catholic Church get together with several Protestant and Jewish organizations and file a lawsuit against these regulations. The more the merrier.

mdavt on February 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Amen to that!

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It’s hard to believe that in the year 2012 that anyone questions the health benefits of birth control pills for many women. Let’s not try and find another way to challenge science.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Let’s uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is the violation that is taking place.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

=========================================================================

I believe the recent SCOTUS 9 – 0 decision speaks to this issue as well.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Will Obama nationalize the Catholic hospitals if they close?

E9RET on February 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It is on the plan after the oil industry, The internet service provides and insurance industry. All medical services will be done at state hospitals with no private hospitals anywhere.

It was already written in law they just have to follow the part that says the secretary of health is authorize to..

tjexcite on February 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

No one is forcing these hypothetical women to work for an organization that is Catholic. They are free to go work somewhere else if they want their birth control for free.

There is no constitutional right to free birth control. However, right there at the very beginning of the Bill of Rights is the establishment clause, saying government, hands off the churches!

italianguy626 on February 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Science may not be your strong suite, but vitamins are not classified as a medication.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Low on calcium, vitamin D or any others certainly do have an effect on your health. Iron and other minerals the same thing.

I don’t want to argue the point because you are always on the LEFT side of any issue.

This is not a Healthcare issue anyway, it’s a 1st Amendment Issue.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM

It’s hard to believe that in the year 2012 that anyone questions the health benefits of birth control pills for many women. Let’s not try and find another way to challenge science.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

This has nothing to do with the benefits of contraceptive pills, it has to do with an attack on the 1st Amendment. We’re not buying your distractions.

Trafalgar on February 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Shorter Bayam,”I’m going to insult you to distract you from focusing on this from a liberty perspective. When the President speaks, it is law, you must obey.”

See you in the gulag under the klieg lights bayam.

tom daschle concerned on February 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Science may not be your strong suite, but vitamins are not classified as a medication.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Well I know for sure science is NOT your strong-suit. Here you go dumba$$

AQUASOL A® Parenteral
water-miscible vitamin A Palmitate
50,000 USP Units
(15 mg retinol/mL)

This is classified as an injected medication, you don’t know jacksh!t about science. You can stop being a pretender.

You can also stop trying to obfuscate issues of moral faith with your relativistic hokum, as your grasp of philosophy and religion are equally weak.

Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM

is that a picture of a fishing lure??…./

ted c on February 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM

lol I almost missed the sarc tag… Nasty looking, isn’t it?

catquilt on February 11, 2012 at 9:45 AM

No! That’s a retainer a dentist gave JugEars for his mouth!

KOOLAID2 on February 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I’d like to see just one man volunteer to have something like an IUD inserted into his body. Who says women are the weaker sex? Babies have been known to be born with these in their hands.

elm on February 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM

“Don’t expect it to go on for long, because this will prove disastrous to Obama’s political support in the fall if left in its current status. I’d give it a week, perhaps less, before we see a real climbdown.”

I’m afraid you are operating under a serious misapprehension. The New York Times, as much as I hate to admit it, actually got this one right. Obama will never back down on this. The feminists will not let him. The “accomodation” yesterday was not designed in the least to appeal to the bishops. It was designed to bring several well-known liberal Catholics, like Chris Matthews, E.J. Dionne Jr., Ruth Marcus, Tim Kaine, et all, who had been critical of this, back on board. And voila within a very few hours, all of them were.

The only way this is going to be overturned is if the courts do it. Which takes us ahead six weeks to the March 24 oral argument before the Supreme Court on Obamacare. I sure hope that somebody is getting ready to tell the six Catholic justices that day that if the individual mandate is constitutional, so is what Obama is trying to do to the Catholic Church.

senor on February 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Since the government appears to be in the business of requiring services to be provide without compensation now, I have an idea.

Lets have some congressperson introduce a bill requiring abortion providers to offer a years supply of birth control free of charge to all of their uninsured clients.

agmartin on February 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM

This has nothing to do with the benefits of contraceptive pills, it has to do with an attack on the 1st Amendment. We’re not buying your distractions.

Trafalgar on February 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM

The courts have already ruled on some of the boundaries of the First Amendment. It will be difficult, for example, for the RCC to claim that a Jewish or Hindi doctor in large hospital qualifies under a ministerial exception.

OptionsTrader on February 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM

It’s hard to believe that in the year 2012 that anyone questions the health benefits of birth control pills for many women. Let’s not try and find another way to challenge science.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Ah reducing this phoney messiah’s strongarm move against freedom-religious and otherwise- to woman’s rights is so 1970′s. It’s a big lie, always has been. It’s a human complete and alive at the moment of conception as science informs us. The entire game is over, when the man demanded that fully born babies out of the womb be slaughtered by starvation and dwehydration and not one leftist protested about infanticide outside their bodies.

Look, defend the right to slaughter life elsewhere.
This is an attack on man’s freedom.

A world without conscience is but Hades. It is no accident that his patron saint, Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer – and in case you missed it – he was serious.

Don L on February 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Yes that’s clearly the perception that has conservatives up in arms- the idea of providing healthcare that actually protects the rights of both single and married women to engage in sex without fear of pregnancy.

But it’s simply not that simple- for many women birth control pills lessen the pain and inconsistency of their monthly period. Why should the women who require birth control pills to regulate their cycle not receive equal protection under their health care plans?

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

So single and married women are unable “to engage in sex without fear of pregnancy” unless the federal government forces the rest of us to pay for their contraceptives and abortion pills? Guess what? Contraception is cheap and readily available in drug stores, grocery stores, and free clinics all across the nation. That was true before Obamacare was passed, and it’s still true today.

And yes, we know that some women use birth control pills to regulate their menstrual cycles, control acne, etc. Once again, these women can still use the BC pill for those purposes without the federal government forcing the rest of us to provide it to them for free.

This is not an equal protection issue. In fact, the contraceptive mandate may even create an equal protection issue because it treats women as more deserving than men. If the federal government can compel citizens to provide “free” contraceptives/abortion pills for all women, then why should it not also compel citizens to pay for “free” Viagra for men? Are only women entitled to “free” medications to help them enjoy sex? Or why not “free” pain pills for men? Are women’s menstrual cramps somehow more deserving of government-coerced “free” medications than men’s pain? And why shouldn’t men get their acne treatment for free for the same reason? If a woman is taking the BC pill for acne, her insurer has to provide it for free under the Obama rules, but if her 19-year-old son also needs a prescription acne medication, he has to pay the co-pay. How is that fair?

AZCoyote on February 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The courts have already ruled on some of the boundaries of the First Amendment. It will be difficult, for example, for the RCC to claim that a Jewish or Hindi doctor in large hospital qualifies under a ministerial exception.

OptionsTrader on February 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Try some apples to apples comparison here. The SC has ruled on boundaries that to date have been limited to fringe practices and non doctrinal issues such as polygamy (See Reynolds vs US).

This issues goes right to the 5 commandment of which no sane person can reasonable argue is not a core element, common civil practice, and founding principle of faith.

The right to refuse in the participation in the ending of a life, which the SC refused to answer when life begins in Roe V Wade, is not something the court has taken up and in fact they have run from.

Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Has anyone heard from any Christian Leaders, as the Southern Baptist Assn or the Billy Graham Assn? Also Dr. Dobson?

There are many Religions besides the Catholic Church that are effected by this. In fact, in my opinion all Americans are.

I’m surprised we haven’t heard from the above.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Here is my churches take. Note Missouri Synod is more strict than many of the other’s like ELCA. But I would hope they see the dangers of Obamacare’s liberty destruction as well. http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/08/lcms-presidents-statement-on-hhs-mandate/

MontanaMmmm on February 11, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Has anyone heard from any Christian Leaders, as the Southern Baptist Assn or the Billy Graham Assn? Also Dr. Dobson?

There are many Religions besides the Catholic Church that are effected by this. In fact, in my opinion all Americans are.

I’m surprised we haven’t heard from the above.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Last night Sean Hannity had a large panel of church leaders on his show talking about this issue: They were Baptists, Catholics, Jews and other Christian denominations.

Most agreed that they would refuse to follow the mandate and would risk prison. Unfortunately, the most mealy mouthed and liberal one was a Jewish rabbi, who would not risk prison.

dukecitygirl on February 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Mark Steyn at NRO quotes another provision from Obamcare:

The Secretary shall establish by regulation standards for determining and disclosing the nutrient content for standard menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or combinations, but which are listed as a single menu item, such as soft drinks, ice cream, pizza, doughnuts, or children’s combination meals, through means determined by the Secretary, including ranges, averages, or other methods.

It’s all about control. Almost every aspect of life can be related to “health,” and Obamacare uses “the secretary shall determine” over 100 times.

Anything not covered by “health” will be covered by Dodd-Frank, No Child Left Behind, the EEOC or the NLRB.

It’s the road to serfdom. Hayek was a prophet.

Wethal on February 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Most agreed that they would refuse to follow the mandate and would risk prison. Unfortunately, the most mealy mouthed and liberal one was a Jewish rabbi, who would not risk prison.

dukecitygirl on February 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM

The IRS will fine them, get a judgment, and then levy on all their property, including bank accounts.

Wethal on February 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Polygamy wasn’t a fringe practice for Mormons, and Reynolds didn’t rely on that rationale. From Reynolds:

the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

In the present circumstance, the RCC would be able to operate hospitals and Universities free of penalties that would be applied to those of other faiths. The justices saw a danger in that which have caused subsequent courts to narrowly consider religious exemptions to generally applicable law.

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The 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. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….

OptionsTrader on February 11, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Will Obama nationalize the Catholic hospitals if they close?

E9RET on February 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It is on the plan after the oil industry, The internet service provides and insurance industry. All medical services will be done at state hospitals with no private hospitals anywhere.

It was already written in law they just have to follow the part that says the secretary of health is authorize to..

tjexcite

If he can force the Catholic hospitals to close he could immediately nationalize 1/3 of the hospitals in the U.S. Since those hospitals mostly serve the poor he would have a built in supporting constituency. Most of those hospitals are staffed by non-Catholics (my wife worked as a nurse at one.

The only “Catholic authority” was a Nun Nurse supervisor) so there would be little turmoil or difficulty in staffing them.

Nationalizing those hospitals would immediately enslave us to Obamacare and could, probably, never be overturned regardless of popular sentiment.

E9RET on February 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Has anyone heard from any Christian Leaders, as the Southern Baptist Assn or the Billy Graham Assn? Also Dr. Dobson?

There are many Religions besides the Catholic Church that are effected by this. In fact, in my opinion all Americans are.

I’m surprised we haven’t heard from the above.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Eastern Orthodox Church is also opposed to the contraceptive mandate.

Wethal on February 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM

In the present circumstance, the RCC would be able to operate hospitals and Universities free of penalties that would be applied to those of other faiths. The justices saw a danger in that which have caused subsequent courts to narrowly consider religious exemptions to generally applicable law.

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The 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. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….

OptionsTrader on February 11, 2012 at 3:40 PM

1st it did not matter that polygamy was not a fringe practice to Mormon (and actually it is but that is a different debate) polygamy was a fringe practice as viewed by the law, thus the reference to polygamy being illegal since the days of whatever British king was mentioned for some of the SC rational.

2nd We are discussing forcing a religious group to commit the act of murder, the act of taking a life, life is protected not only biblical but within our laws. The 1st amendment issue the government is making a law for is actually forcing a religion to ACT AGAINST core doctrine, unlike polygamy which was preventing a religion from participating in an act considered fringe.

The court will have to address the issue of forcing a religion to take an action against their belief, in this case the action is murder. You are missing the entire point until you understand the difference between preventing an act from occurring and forcing a group to participate in an act. Also the determination of when life begins so as to decide if this violates the religion’s doctrine will most likely have to be addressed. There has been no such legal casework around these issues.

Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM

The IRS will fine them, get a judgment, and then levy on all their property, including bank accounts.

Wethal on February 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And what if they won’t move until his civilian army shows up…might not the world and a few million others wake up to the planned destruction of everything of value?

Some of us remember that wall and the East German Marxists machine gunning little kids running to freedom. We’re well on that road already. If we fall in America, who will come to save us? Who can save us? What will stop the evil from coming completely our of its deceit and showing the anti-God folks what it really is like to toy with conscience and God. This is not just a Catholic issue by a long shot.

Don L on February 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM

It is important to remember that “government health care” isn’t so much about health care as it is about government. As Mark Steyn observes, the law authorizes the Sec-HHS to make rules on dental care at “tooth level” and to regulate any substance which contains a variety of other substances – like soft drinks.

The Catholic Church is fighting the wrong battle, as usual. Instead of standing up for religious and personal liberty, they are fighting for their institution’s rights alone. The Catholic business owner is thrown under the bus, as are the Baptists, and anyone who believes they have freedom. Read Paul Rahe’s take on it – he is Catholic, but points out the follies of the hierarchy.

Adjoran on February 11, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I’d like to see just one man volunteer to have something like an IUD inserted into his body. Who says women are the weaker sex? Babies have been known to be born with these in their hands.

elm on February 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM

lol….there’s not a chance in hell that I’d willfully let anyone stick a chunk of hardware in my nether-regions that looked like that.

It hurts to just look at it.

You Win.

Tim_CA on February 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

And what if they won’t move until his civilian army shows up…might not the world and a few million others wake up to the planned destruction of everything of value?

Don L on February 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM

The Dems are assuming that most people will submit to Obamacare, because the past few generations have been so neutered by the entitlement state that they’ll do what they’re told to keep the benefits coming.

There will be enough limited freedom of religion, speech and press to give the illusion that they have “liberty,” and those who protest are “extremists” who don’t believe in giving their “fair share” for “social justice.”

I hope the Dems are wrong, but…

Wethal on February 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I would love to see the Catholic Church get together with several Protestant and Jewish organizations and file a lawsuit against these regulations. The more the merrier.

mdavt on February 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Does anyone know why Muslims are exempt from all this? Someone wrote earlier that they are…

chai on February 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Thank God – quite literally – for strong Church leaders. Let’s not allow the President to sleaze his way out of this mess of his own making. To quote the Great Uniter, if he brings a knife … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on February 11, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You know I think you find this in other Faiths also. Criticizm seems to come too easily; better to pick one’s battles. I’ve heard it about the Music, the Sermon, the Play and on and on:-) That’s just being picky. Doctrinal issues are another matter and if you have a disagreement there, read the Bible and then make a decision on what to do about the disagreement.

I have a Family member that you can’t discuss Religion or Politics with, LOL Yes, the person is a Dem:-)bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I’m Jewish and the same mentality applies to the Reformed and Conservative (not politically) synagogues. It’s just a place for upwardly mobile Jewish families to socialize and have their kids play together, and plan lavish Bar Mitzvah parties. But when the rabbis start preaching about the coming of the Messiah, these Baby Boomer/GenXr’s just tune it out. The Messiah!!??? Why that’s downright goyish (a Yiddish expression for something that’s un-Jewish).

ardenenoch on February 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM

You can also stop trying to obfuscate issues of moral faith with your relativistic hokum, as your grasp of philosophy and religion are equally weak.

Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM

With few exceptions, vitamins do not fall under the purvue of the FDA- but don’t let that slow down your hate-filled rants.

I would love to see the Catholic Church get together with several Protestant and Jewish organizations and file a lawsuit against these regulations. The more the merrier.

mdavt on February 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Most Protestants and Jews are not opposed to providing their employees with birth control. You’re conflating an issue raised by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church with another issue. Equal protection under the law is the relevant issue here.

And the law does provide for equal protection. A religious organization that pays you for weekday employment CANNOT prevent you from working on Saturdays, even if their religious doctrine calls for a Saturday day of rest. Likewise, religious employers must adhere to all workplace safety, fair labor laws, and other laws designed to protect employees, even when those rules conflict with passages in the Koran or other religious text.

This reality may offend some on the right, but religious doctrine generally does not trump federal employment laws and regulations in the eyes of the court.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Does anyone know why Muslims are exempt from all this? Someone wrote earlier that they are…

chai on February 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Sharia law prohibits Muslims from purchasing conventional insurance policies. Obamacare requires Americans to purchase health insurance (with the federal government dictating the terms of the insurance contract — what coverages are included, co-pays and deductibles, etc.), but it is unclear if American Muslims will be exempt from the insurance purchase requirement, as some other groups are (for example, the Amish).

I have seen conflicting reports in the media; some say Muslims are exempt, others claim they are not. HHS may ultimately have to develop some type of “Sharia-compliant” health insurance for the Muslims. I guess it’s another one of those things we’ll have to wait for the Dims to figure out before we find out “what’s in it.”

AZCoyote on February 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM

It’s hard to believe that in the year 2012 that anyone questions the health benefits of birth control pills for many women. Let’s not try and find another way to challenge science.

bayam

It’s hard to believe that in 2012 that liberals would continue to make disingenuous arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Ok, it’s really not hard to believe. Stupid is forever, and make no mistake about it….liberals are stupid.

xblade on February 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM

My advice to the Catholic Church: form an insurance company that follows the precepts of the Church and its duties, and offer that insurance openly to any who wish to get it and keep a clear conscience. Make sure that it is strictly run by the Church but is a haven for all who do not wish to have their insurance dictated by government. You will be surprised at the response to this by showing what a moral institution can do in the marketplace. And it will offer a sanctuary to those who wish to be free of government obligations against our liberty and conscience.

ajacksonian on February 11, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Actually alot of Catholic institutions like hospitals and schools self-insure and there are Catholic insurance companies. So this is the next round of objections that the Bishops have raised. The point is we shouldn’t be going down the road of what portion or our religious rights the tyranical administration will allow us to exercise. ObamaCare should be thrown out in its entirety.

txmomof6 on February 11, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I’d like to see just one man volunteer to have something like an IUD inserted into his body. Who says women are the weaker sex?

elm

Seriously? What decade are you stuck in?

xblade on February 11, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Liberty University filed suit in the Virginia lawsuit claiming that ObamaCare violated the Establishment Clause because it provided an exemption for some religions and not others, thereby discriminating against some religions. The State cannot do that and the bar that Congress has to meet for a Statute to pass Constitutional muster is very high. Unfortunately, on Appeal the Circuit court sent this back down to the district court and the Supreme Court is not considering the Virginia case in the arguments in March. The good news is this issue is not dead in terms of the appellate process, it just won’t be considered yet.

txmomof6 on February 11, 2012 at 6:03 PM

This reality may offend some on the right, but religious doctrine generally does not trump federal employment laws and regulations in the eyes of the court.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Last time I checked, my First Amendment right to practice my Catholic faith cannot be superseded via government regulations, although of course Obama and his merry band of Marxists think they do.

PatriotGal2257 on February 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I have seen conflicting reports in the media; some say Muslims are exempt, others claim they are not. HHS may ultimately have to develop some type of “Sharia-compliant” health insurance for the Muslims. I guess it’s another one of those things we’ll have to wait for the Dims to figure out before we find out “what’s in it.”

AZCoyote on February 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Thanks for the response. So why are they exempt and Catholics and other conscientious Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc. not? One answer could be that O is Muslim and is helping out his brothers, But then where is the outrage from anyone in Congress or in the Supreme Court? Can Obozo just go around and decide who can do what without anyone challenging him?

chai on February 11, 2012 at 6:12 PM

You know I think you find this in other Faiths also. Criticizm seems to come too easily; better to pick one’s battles. I’ve heard it about the Music, the Sermon, the Play and on and on:-) That’s just being picky. Doctrinal issues are another matter and if you have a disagreement there, read the Bible and then make a decision on what to do about the disagreement.

I have a Family member that you can’t discuss Religion or Politics with, LOL Yes, the person is a Dem:-)

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Very true. The minor complaints about the music, etc. is just so much whining over something that comes with the territory and that just gets a shrug of the shoulders. And my dear father-in-law was a diehard Dem that even in the face of conflicting info still persisted in the belief that the Dems could do no wrong; it drove my hubby nuts when his dad got into one of his rants about it. :-)

But I’ll give you an example of an attitude I find among some few Catholics that disturbs me and really makes me wonder why they want to remain as a member when every indication is that they have wholeheartedly chosen to be members of the “Church of Liberalism.”

A girlfriend of mine and a friend of hers (but only an acquaintance of mine), both Catholics, had that friend abruptly quit a friendship of over a decade when my girlfriend did not agree with her on the issue of abortion. The acquaintance was all for it; my girlfriend was absolutely against it.

In my own encounters with this acquaintance, she seemed to me to be always (!) complaining about something in the Catholic Church — the teachings, the doctrines — to the point where I almost asked her if she didn’t want to adhere to any of it, then why did she bother to come to Mass each week.

After my girlfriend told me that it happened, I no longer saw this gal inside our parish. She may have gone to another parish nearby or to a different denomination entirely, but my suspicion is that she just left altogether. To me, she should just cut to the chase and stand behind what she really believes: essentially a libertine attitude and quit with the intellectual dishonesty, but my guess is that she’s too cowardly to do so.

PatriotGal2257 on February 11, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Does anyone know why Muslims are exempt from all this? Someone wrote earlier that they are…

chai on February 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Hannity was also surprised by one of his favorite Muslims calling in, yesterday.
He recognized his name onscreen, took his call, and the guy proclaimed support for the bishops, and anyone else resisting this power grab.
Thought that was pretty neat … Sorry, can’t recall the caller’s name.
It’s probably transcribed (at least) on Sean’s website.

pambi on February 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

This is what pambi posted to me earlier.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 11:02 PM

MontanaMmmm on February 11, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Hi, I am late getting back to this thread:-) Thanks for that info and the link which I’ll check out. Hopefully every Faith and Organization will protest this as it will effect them also.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Last night Sean Hannity had a large panel of church leaders on his show talking about this issue: They were Baptists, Catholics, Jews and other Christian denominations.

Most agreed that they would refuse to follow the mandate and would risk prison. Unfortunately, the most mealy mouthed and liberal one was a Jewish rabbi, who would not risk prison.

dukecitygirl on February 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Thanks dukecitygirl. I’m going to try and find that on Fox. I’m sure it was interesting. If it is the Jewish Rabbi I’m thinking of I’m not surprised at his take on the issue:-)

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 11:12 PM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Eastern Orthodox Church is also opposed to the contraceptive mandate.

Wethal on February 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Thanks Wethal. It’s good to see that more and more are opposing this. This thread contains more and more. As soon as I get time, I intend to check some myself.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 11:15 PM

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I’m Jewish and the same mentality applies to the Reformed and Conservative (not politically) synagogues. It’s just a place for upwardly mobile Jewish families to socialize and have their kids play together, and plan lavish Bar Mitzvah parties. But when the rabbis start preaching about the coming of the Messiah, these Baby Boomer/GenXr’s just tune it out. The Messiah!!??? Why that’s downright goyish (a Yiddish expression for something that’s un-Jewish).

ardenenoch on February 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM

From reading about my experiences and others and now yours, it seems it’s not limited to any particular Religion or Faith. It’s the people themselves. I never would have thought about it that way.

Strange that some would think the Rabbi is preaching something un-Jewish.

I understand about how some would treat it as a place to socialize. Some of the larger Christian Churches are the same. The Service is too casual, like a party. This is not as it should be. After all it is written “for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people” Isaiah 56:7b

bluefox on February 12, 2012 at 12:12 AM

This reality may offend some on the right, but religious doctrine generally does not trump federal employment laws and regulations in the eyes of the court.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights of which the 1st Amendment applies in this issue DOES trump anything you have to say.

Stop posting about issues that you clearly have no understanding of. You are worse than ignorant in that you have rejected knowledge when you should have learned from it. It’s one thing to be ignorant, but it’s worse when one is willfully ignorant after having been told what is correct.

I don’t reply to you for your learning, but for those that in good faith are inquiring so that they won’t be taken in and spread your ignorance.

bluefox on February 12, 2012 at 12:21 AM

The point is we shouldn’t be going down the road of what portion or our religious rights the tyranical administration will allow us to exercise. ObamaCare should be thrown out in its entirety.

txmomof6 on February 11, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Exactly!! You nailed it, thank you.

bluefox on February 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM

PatriotGal2257 on February 11, 2012 at 6:58 PM

About your girlfriend’s friend. From the sound of it, she seemed to accept certain teachings but not others. I agree with you, if one doesn’t agree and can only complain, then leave.

I’ve done that several times, mostly over doctrinal issues. One church used powerpoint presentations that some Publisher sent to the churches.
Well, I would rather hear what the Pastor had to say that was current and was applicable to the congregation, not a one size fits all:-)

Sometimes it takes awhile to find the right church, but it’s certainly not worth staying in one where you are not content. At least that’s what I have found.

Abortion is an issue where most people have it right. The problem is that legal is not always moral. When immoral men make an immoral issue legal, then there will always be a disagreement. Moral vs Immoral. Proverbs 20:11 says: “Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right”

bluefox on February 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Will Obama nationalize the Catholic hospitals if they close?

E9RET on February 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Good question, Top.
The finest care I ever had was in a Catholic Hospital. Even though the lousy insurance plan I had in the Bible Belt didn’t cover the costs. I gladly paid the bill. (thank God for disability insurance)
BUT, when a woman came into my room the night before surgery and asked if I wanted to receive Communion from her, I about stroked out. Being the ever gracious gentleman, I simply said, “No thank you”. Ya see, there aint too many o’them thar “papists” in Bible Belt.
(sigh)

To The TOP!
Air Mobile!

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Line up to see the idiocy that is bayam, first he decides to ridicule a poster for their lack of scientific understanding.

No one is stopping them from getting it. Vitamins are a health benefit. Why do I have to pay for them?

Science may not be your strong suite, but vitamins are not classified as a medication.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Then I respond pointedly since he is obviously wrong with.

Science may not be your strong suite, but vitamins are not classified as a medication.

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Well I know for sure science is NOT your strong-suit. Here you go dumba$$

AQUASOL A® Parenteral
water-miscible vitamin A Palmitate
50,000 USP Units
(15 mg retinol/mL)

Then bayam with his self perceived weapons grade wit responds

With few exceptions, vitamins do not fall under the purvue of the FDA- but don’t let that slow down your hate-filled rants.

Ahh yes which is it bayam are vitamins or are they not medication. here is a hint look up the definition for medication and you will find nearly any substance used to manage a persons health. Medication = treatment with drugs or remedies, Vitamin C is a remedy for scurvy.

Secondly medication is not FDA try to compare apples to apples as opposed to your continued practice of polluting the argument with inane references filled with unrelated comparisons.

Also calling an idiot an idiot is only hate filled if it is not true. The above posts where you brilliantly contradict and be-clown yourself I offer as evidence for your idiocy, as such my statement is not an insult or hate filled, it is an unfortunate fact of your life.

Skwor on February 12, 2012 at 12:36 PM

bluefox on February 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM

A pastor used a Powerpoint presentation in lieu of a homily? Yikes. Yeah … I would have been out the door in no time also. :-)

I mentioned this on another thread a while back, but it’s been my experience, particularly with some people I’ve worked with, that the most virulent anti-Catholics are ex-Catholics. They are not content just to find another church that fits their mindset; they have to actively denigrate the Catholic Church at every turn as well. To me, it usually boils down to a minor misunderstanding, or even a priest telling them something they didn’t want to hear, that they then blow completely out of proportion. Somehow these people never consider that perhaps their view might be mistaken or (gasp) wrong. Trying to reason with these people is like trying to reason with hardcore liberal Democrats, which is to say, you can’t. Sometimes, they are one and the same.

On the other hand, I have several books by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, who used to have a program on EWTN. In one of them, he advises the same thing as you do, when encountering a priest who strays from official Catholic teachings: go mobile :-) and leave.

PatriotGal2257 on February 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

PatriotGal2257 some yes but some parishes have done great harm to the church. See my post at Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM
in this thread to see a snippet of my story.

I can honestly say the Catholic Church I went to in that time frame was a hindrance to my salvation and not an aid. The message of salvation was never preached. however a lot of soft feel good theology was.

That kind of theology is a fast track to damnation in my opinion, it inoculates the sinner from an understanding of the real sin in one’s life and the need for redemption.

Skwor on February 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Frustration. I went to Catechism from 1969 to 1981 and never once did I hear ae Catechism or mass that Jesus was a personal Savior. All I heard was Jesus is love. That is not hyperbole, that is a very real sad fact. I was saved in the navy several years later by a pentecostal, it was the night I prayed with him that I then realized what first communion was supposed to be, that was an epiphany 15 years to late. Going 15 years without salvation that you now understood the gravity of is humbling indeed.

I struggle daily with what to think of my Catholic experience.

Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Skwor: Almost the exact time period you discuss is a very shameful one for the Church, in terms of Catechism. As for myself, I prefer a much more rational approach.

Scott H on February 11, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I understand where you’re coming from, Skwor. And I agree with Scott H’s reply to you: the whole time period after 1968 until even into the 80s was a very sad and troubling time for the Catholic Church in the U.S.

There’s probably not enough space here to discuss everything, but in short, in the aftermath of Vatican II, some renegade clergy chose to abandon their fidelity to official Catholic teachings and work actively to subvert it so that eventually, as it filtered down to the parish level, the average Catholic in the pew would come to doubt their faith and in a lot of cases, lose it altogether.

It’s no accident that as those views began to take hold, membership in the Catholic Church dropped precipitously, Mass attendance dwindled and people were being taught all kinds of questionable doctrine instead of the core beliefs of the faith. I was a teenager in the 70s and I remember very well the goofy folk Masses, the bastardization of the liturgy and music and the idiotic viewpoints and “teachings” of some priests and religious.

That whole time period did incalculable damage to average Catholics; it’s been a very long slog to try to repair it, and it’s still an ongoing effort. One of the reasons that John Paul II commissioned the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1987 was for exactly that reason, so people could read and learn for themselves the truths of the faith. It wasn’t being taught, certainly, or if it was, it was corrupted to fit the notions of some clergy with an agenda at total odds with it.

The good news is that a lot of that false doctrine and the clergy who had promoted it is actively being weeded out. There is an increased return to traditional Catholic teachings and precepts and there are many, many new priests and bishops who are at the forefront of it.

I can see very well why you thought the Catholic Church was a hindrance to you based on your experience, but I hope it is of some comfort to know that what you went through has been acknowledged by the Church to be a serious mistake and is no longer the rule of thumb.

PatriotGal2257 on February 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM

In all the freedom of religion squabbling, I missed this: under what authority can Obama dictate a term of insurance coverage? Any term?

Barnestormer on February 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Barnestormer on February 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

He can’t do that either.

PatriotGal2257 on February 12, 2012 at 5:09 PM

But it’s simply not that simple- for many women birth control pills lessen the pain and inconsistency of their monthly period. Why should the women who require birth control pills to regulate their cycle not receive equal protection under their health care plans?

bayam on February 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

This is untrue. While doctors do prescribe birth control pills for this, it is just covering up the problem. There is an underlying syndrome or disease causing these problems, and the BC pills just cover it up.

cptacek on February 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I struggle daily with what to think of my Catholic experience.

Skwor on February 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Well, let’s sum it up with some words which are spoken by the Faithful at every Mass — words which you were not yet prepared to understand until you met someone in the Navy:

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was born (incarnate) of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Not strong enough for you? Didn’t you look around at the Stations of the Cross (every Catholic Church has them) and understand what He went through?

Didn’t you look up at the CRUCIFIX and understand what He went through?

We Catholics load our churches with imagery (to the consternation of many Protestants) — and that imagery is there for a purpose — to aid us in understanding our Savior, his life, and what is expected in turn from us.

Every major moment in our Savior’s life is depicted pictorially. When you think of the Last Supper, what do you visualize?

In a three year cycle, the Church read the entire Bible to you in Mass. This has been going on for almost two millennia, and certainly was going on between 1968 and 1973 — for I was a Catholic during those times too — and still am now.

And I taught Catechism in the 1990′s and certainly did not scrimp on the concept of salvation, and what is required for it. You must have had very bad teachers for what is needed not to have poked through.

Do not blame the Church for your own previous failings. My own sister has fallen away from the Church in her belief that faith alone and not works is what is needed to be saved. Yet Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount: “By their fruits shall you know them” [Matt. 7:16]. I remonstrate with her frequently over a dissolute lifestyle in which she believes that Jesus forgives her every sin in the moment she commits it — because she has faith in Him. I submit that understanding what deeds he demands of us in addition to faith is required: (“Go and sin no more.”, “A new commandment I give you: Love one another as I have loved you”). These are hard things to do, and we will fail at them occasionally — but if we expect God to think well of us, we must try.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I’ve spend a few days trying to figure out which is the most offensive part of this little drama. (1) That the government believes it has the right to disregard a clear line drawn in the constitution regarding religious freedom. (2) That they thought could get away with it under the guise of ‘women’s rights’ and because some surveys showed that many Catholic women haven’t always held to the Church’s doctrine. (3) That by executive order the government can require private companies to provide services ‘for free’. (4) That the Catholic leadership would be so shallow as to fall for such simplistic misdirection. Or, (5) that the public could be fooled into believing that the insurance companies really would (or even could) provide something ‘for free’ and remain in business — the costs come out of somebody’s pockets in the end.

I’m Catholic, so there’s some loss of objectivity, but I have to say that I think that #3 ranks at high as #1, The initial attack on the first ammendment is one that radicals have attempted time and again, but that the White House thinks they have the authority to order private companies — which are really collections of private individuals — to provide something for free, just because they say so, is an attack on another of America’s founding principles.

John_W on February 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM

These older Catholics just didn’t want to hear the Bible or Scriptures preached, just the Mass. These Priests were preaching Salvation according to the Scriptures, i.e. born again.

bluefox on February 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

As an older Catholic — one whose faith was formed in the 1960s, a few comments:

a) The Mass is built around the Scriptures. The entire Bible is read in a three year cycle. I learned this in the 1960s. Normally, the Homily will address the Gospel — a reading describing an incident in Jesus’ life and acts. We are left to reflect upon other readings ourselves — generally from the Old Testament and the Acts — if the priest isn’t very good and fails to knit all of the readings in a Mass into a unified whole — which, of course, they are.
b) There will always be those who will construct their own own god and worship him or her. What they worship is actually themselves. They are sinners, but one can still hope that they come around. They will only come around if you evangelize them.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2012 at 8:23 PM

John_W on February 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Sadly, your #4 was true — the Bishops came out in support of Obamacare. I felt abandoned by my own Church — because (like you) I understood that whenever we grow government nin any market, there are going to be those in the government who will make sure they profit in that market at the expense of the many, and they will do this by inciting our covetous nature and our feelings that someone successful must have gotten there by stealing from us — and, hence, it’s perfectly OK to steal back.

That was the mindset I thought I saw the Bishops falling into, and I was aghast.

When Jesus said to render unto Caesar, he certainly did not equate that into rendering unto God. What he really meant to those questioning him was that one’s need to submit to earthly authority must of necessity be limited by what one must do in submitting to God.

The Bishops have apparently figured that part out. Hopefully they’ll come to understand that ALL of Obamacare is putrid — that the reason they do not force Catholics to give/tithe at the Offertory is because every almsgiving which benefits a person comes not from outside force but from that person’s heart. Turning that thought around and applying it to Government is their next task, methinks.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2012 at 8:35 PM

OT, but . . .

NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof described this past week’s controversy re Obamacare and the Catholics as “pelvic politics.”

Imagine the NYT reaction if any identifiable Republican had done the same. I hear shrieking!!

ugottabekiddingme on February 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Even if he does, we won’t forget this.

Key West Reader on February 11, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Praying that you are right. People do tend to have such short memories…

cheetah2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3