What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing?

posted at 8:40 am on March 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, Francis Cardinal George of the archdiocese of Chicago sent a message to parishioners in Barack Obama’s home town that imposition of the HHS mandate to fund and facilitate contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization would force the Catholic Church to close its hospitals, clinics, schools, and all other organizations that would otherwise have to comply.  “Two Lents from now,” Cardinal George warned, “unless something changes, the page [listing Catholic organizations] will be blank.”  At the time, some commenters wrote that this has been Obama’s plan all along — to force religious charities out of business to make people more dependent on government.  Others, including myself, figure that Obama just thinks the bishops are bluffing, and wants to engage in a high-stakes bout of brinksmanship to force them to kneel to secular authority over doctrine.

But how high are those stakes?  In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I did a little research just on Catholic hospitals and their significance in American health care.  As it turns out, this bet involved nearly $100 billion in annual costs and about one-seventh of all hospital beds in the US — and that’s not all:

The Catholic Church has perhaps the most extensive private health-care delivery system in the nation. It operates 12.6 percent of hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., accounting for 15.6 percent of all admissions and 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses, a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion. Whom do these hospitals serve? Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

The poor and working class families that get assistance from Catholic benefactors would end up having to pay more for their care than they do under the current system. Rural patients would have to travel farther for medical care, and services like social work and breast-cancer screenings would fall to the less-efficient government-run institutions. That would not only impact the poor and working class patients, but would create much longer wait times for everyone else in the system. Finally, over a half-million people employed by Catholic hospitals now would lose their jobs almost overnight, which would have a big impact on the economy as well as on health care.

Of course, it’s not just hospitals.  The Catholic Church runs over 7500 primary and secondary education schools in the US (where over a third of students are non-Catholics), educating more than 2.5 million students.  Thanks to a near-blanket moratorium on vouchers, taxpayer money doesn’t get used in teaching these students in a system that has a 99% graduation rate and a 97% success rate at placing students in college.  Based on an average student cost of $8000 in public schools, Catholic schools save taxpayers about $20 billion dollars a year.

Perhaps with schools, though, the notion that Obama wants to crowd out private enterprise in favor of the public sector makes more sense. How about charities?  Catholic Charities would also have to close its doors if the bishops refuse to comply with the HHS mandate.  In 2003, the latest data available, they provided emergency food services to 6.5 million people, temporary shelter to over 200,000 people, and a range of other assistance to another 1.5 million people, including assistance in clothing, finances, utilities, and even medication.  Those efforts would disappear overnight, along with schools and hospitals.

Surely, some will think, the bishops are just bluffing, and won’t purposefully create such a social disaster.  Perhaps, but consider the teachings of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order and a deeply influential figure in Catholic thinking:

Some may doubt that the bishops would create this kind of havoc and disruption, and perhaps President Obama believes Cardinal George and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be bluffing. However, Obama may want to read St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, and his Principle and Foundation of faith, which informs Catholics on the priority of salvation. The first task of mankind, according to St. Ignatius, is to serve God and “save his soul,” and “other things on the face of the earth” should be used only as long as they serve that purpose. When they become a hindrance to salvation, St. Ignatius warns to “rid himself of them.”

If the HHS mandate forces the Catholic Church to fund and facilitate access to products and services they believe imperil souls, they will apply Ignatius’ principle and stick with salvation — which is the entire raison d’être of any religious organization.  The implications for public-sector spending and services is massive, and Obama may be pushing all in with only a pair of jacks.  Don’t count on the bishops to blink first.


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 4

Catholic hospitals’ contribution to treatment and care of people from all strata of society is quite profound. The significance as stated above cannot be ignored. Obummer wishes government to take this on? If that happens, I think even democrats will find a way to disqualify him from being president.

jake49 on March 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Translation: I am a statist; I worship the secular government as God.

mabryb1 on March 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

no I defensively not a statist. I am a libertarian. I just understand that in a tolerant society like ours, secular laws must sometimes overrule religious laws. what is the alternative? religious law allways stands? how can that be when there are sects with opposing religious laws?

and by the way, maybe the Catholic church plan is to provide all healthcare in the US, so then can the worshiped as the giver of health thus replacing the state, the free market, and god itself. this kind of strange reasoning goes both ways.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Catholic education doesn’t stop at the secondary level. Some of our country’s greatest institutions of higher education are sponsored by the Catholic Church. Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston College – those are just the ones in the US News Top 50. There are dozens of others.

Selkirk on March 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I wrote before, i am not sure if obamacare is unconstitutional. but if it is, I doubt it will be because of the first amendment.

The case before the Supreme Court involves challenges on the Commerce Clause, improper commandeering, 9th and 10th amendments issues, etc.

The mandate on contraception/abortifacients/sterilisations is not before the Court at this time. Several suits have been filed at the district level. Striking down the c/a/s mandate would not overturn Obamacare since it is a HHS rule.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I am not liberal.

Sure you’re not, wink, wink! Of course not!

I wont copy past again scalia remarks on that. check my previous post and debate scalia, not me.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I see. Since you obviously cannot refute my statements, running away like a scared little child seems to be your only alternative since, as I stated before, Scalia’s remarks had nothing to do with the current Church mandate issue.

Your defeat is noted.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Wow, quite impressive. It’s interesting how you’re quick to post “evidence” to show that the Church caused the downfall of Rome by forcing it’s values on that society and yet, seem to be very silent when Obama is doing the same thing today. Take this, for example:

529 Justinian outlaws the Athenian Philosophical Academy and has its property confiscated.

Obama may choose to do the same thing to Church-owned hospitals and yet, you seem completely comfortable with that concept. Obviously, your anti-Christian hate-speech is quite clear.

To summarize your position: When the Church forces values it’s wrong; when government forces values it’s permitted.coke.

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Your continued copying and pasting of Scalia’s writing in Smith is just making you look foolish. It is as if you are citing Plessy v. Ferguson.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM

again, scalia words:

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

replace “sect” with “catholic church” and “activity” with “health care”

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

We all knew this was coming.

Obama simply has picked an entity that will not budge. All of us have a point where we will declare personal war. For some it would be the widespread arrest of citizens, for some the seizing of guns, for some the closing of the internet to Conservative speech, for some the seizing of their businesses (like Gibson Guitar); for some would be Obama canceling elections. In this case, Obama has picked the breaking point of the RCC. As in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” everyone with the least amount of courage has a point where they break and turn on their oppressors, either with active fighting or by withdrawing support. I don’t believe Americans have the “Gas Chamber” mentality of the Jews of Europe in the 1930′s and 40′s.

Astonishingly, even the Liberal commentators here do not doubt that force might be necessary if the RCC does not comply. Whether that takes the form of seizing their property or “Nationalizing” their staff or trying to rid them of tax exempt status to impoverish them or outright arrest. This is a remarkable stand given that this is a deeply unpopular law forced down the throats of Americans who never even knew its contents before it was passed and in all likelihood will be repealed.

Catholics are the new Jews.

Bulletchaser on March 1, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I am sad to say that, on this item only, I’m betting Obama is correct. Before it is all said and done, the hospitals will be spun-off into non-affiliated private corporations.

There’ll probably be name changes from, for example, “Santa Rosa Medical Center” to “AAATT Medical Center,” where AAATT means All-Abortion All-the-Time.

I cannot see the Church allowing its enormous investment in facilities going to waste. It should, but it won’t.

Mdirmeie on March 1, 2012 at 11:47 AM

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Actually Nathor, I remember Christians being persecuted quite a bit. I don’t remember pagans being used as torches at Coliseums or fed to lions.

“Demolish Them” is a hopelessly slanted source. Vlasis Rassias is an activist trying to bring back worship of Zeuss.

So you wish to pogrom the Catholics, Nathor, over civil struggles in the fourth century? It’s not like my forbears in Ireland didn’t get this treatment. Their parochial schools were shut down also. They were treated as third-class citizens.

See “Laws in Ireland for the Suppression of Popery”:

http://library.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/

I might as well wear green while it’s still legal.

theCork on March 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I am a libertarian.

Is that the weed talking?

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Pretty sure they mean what they say. Would not put money on Obama.

jeanie on March 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Yep and Catholics would have to chose between their loyalties when they go to vote in November….I imagine them gassing up their vehicle at the pump, paying over $4.00 a gallon, while they weigh their conscience. It’s pretty difficult to get to that date to use those contraceptives when you can’t afford to drive.

I needed somewhere to hang my head
Without your noose
You gave me something that I didn’t have
But had no use

I was too weak to give in
Too strong to lose
My heart is under arrest again
But I break loose
My head is giving me life or death
But I can’t choose
I swear I’ll never give in
I refuse….Is someone getting the best of you?

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:32 AM

You linked the wrong post. Nevertheless, people who say you’re wrong:

Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Tacitus, The Germania
Suetonius, Lives of the Ceasars
Cicero, On the Commonwealth
Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

There’s four primary and two secondary sources, against your tertiary source. The Catholic church revitalized and sustained the Empire long past when it should have fallen. It fell because it grew morally corrupt and licentious. Like America.

mabryb1 on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Wow, quite impressive. It’s interesting how you’re quick to post “evidence” to show that the Church caused the downfall of Rome by forcing it’s values on that society and yet, seem to be very silent when Obama is doing the same thing today. Take this, for example:

529 Justinian outlaws the Athenian Philosophical Academy and has its property confiscated.

Obama may choose to do the same thing to Church-owned hospitals and yet, you seem completely comfortable with that concept. Obviously, your anti-Christian hate-speech is quite clear.

To summarize your position: When the Church forces values it’s wrong; when government forces values it’s permitted.
coke.

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

yes, that true, the majority can impose certain values. such as, no polygamy. no drugs, no alcool and its all constitutional. but its was imposed by the elected majority, not by the vatican. big diference.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

replace “sect” with “catholic church” and “activity” with “health care”

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Did you talk to Scalia directly or are the little voices in your head acting up again?

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I cannot see the Church allowing its enormous investment in facilities going to waste. It should, but it won’t.

Mdirmeie on March 1, 2012 at 11:47 AM

The bishops have announced that they’ll shut down the hospitals, not sell them.

However, the administration will seize the land using extra-legal proceedings. Progressives are disdainful of all individual rights.

theCork on March 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I might as well wear green while it’s still legal.

theCork on March 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Irish Blessing,
May those that love us, love us.
And those that don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn’t turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles
So we will know them by their limping
:)

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM

yes, that true, the majority can impose certain values. such as, no polygamy. no drugs, no alcool and its all constitutional. but its was imposed by the elected majority, not by the vatican. big diference.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

And the majority opposed same-sex marriage in California. What happened to that?

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM

You linked the wrong post. Nevertheless, people who say you’re wrong:

Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Tacitus, The Germania
Suetonius, Lives of the Ceasars
Cicero, On the Commonwealth
Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

There’s four primary and two secondary sources, against your tertiary source. The Catholic church revitalized and sustained the Empire long past when it should have fallen. It fell because it grew morally corrupt and licentious. Like America.

mabryb1 on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

ah, but the 4th century church managed to impose its strict morals and then what? then civilization really went down the cliff.
better read that gibbon again. he does not exactly praise the church.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

To Christian or Orthodox Jew: Sure they’re coming after Catholics now, but make no mistake, you’re also on the menu.

theCork on March 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

And the majority opposed same-sex marriage in California. What happened to that?

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM

in my opinion the popular decision should stand.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Wow, quite impressive. It’s interesting how you’re quick to post “evidence” to show that the Church caused the downfall of Rome by forcing it’s values on that society and yet, seem to be very silent when Obama is doing the same thing today. Take this, for example:
529 Justinian outlaws the Athenian Philosophical Academy and has its property confiscated.
Obama may choose to do the same thing to Church-owned hospitals and yet, you seem completely comfortable with that concept. Obviously, your anti-Christian hate-speech is quite clear.

To summarize your position: When the Church forces values it’s wrong; when government forces values it’s permitted.coke.
Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM
yes, that true, the majority can impose certain values. such as, no polygamy. no drugs, no alcool and its all constitutional. but its was imposed by the elected majority, not by the vatican. big diference.
nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

You’re equating the Catholic Church refusing the unconstitutional diktats of the state with the Catholic Church forcing it’s doctrine on the state and citizens in general? I don’t think you know what a libertarian is.

gwelf on March 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

yes, that true, the majority of Germans can impose certain values. such as, no polygamy. no drugs, no alcool no Jews, and no Poles and its all constitutional. but its was imposed by the elected majority, not by the vatican. big diference.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

FIFY
“An unjust law is no law at all” – Aristotle

mabryb1 on March 1, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Michelle Obama Was “Distressed” About the Power of “White Irish Catholics” in Illinois

In defense of Barack Obama I think he just does what he’s told.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM

hospitals? before hospitals there was no health care? why do then doctors make the Hippocratic Oath? he was greek pagan that lived around 400 BC you know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education
??
are you claiming that the romans and greeks had no education institutions? even your wikipedia article explains that well.
nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Putz! Distorting my comments only serve to show the rest here that you’re a raving idiot. Reread what I posted here:

the church DID NOT INVENT the business of healthcare and education. it has been around long before there was a pope in this planet. once upon a time the church DID HAVE THE MONOPOLY of healthcare and education, those times where called the dark ages.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

And contrast with what Wiki says about your false assertion about the greeks & Romans:

In the city-states of ancient Greece, most education was private, except in Sparta. For example, in Athens, during the 5th and 4th century BC,

aside from two years military training, the state played little part in schooling

.[35][36] Anyone could open a school and decide the curriculum. Parents could choose a school offering the subjects they wanted their children to learn, at a monthly fee they could afford.[35] Most parents, even the poor, sent their sons to schools for at least a few years, and if they could afford it from around the age of seven until fourteen, learning gymnastics (including athletics, sport and wrestling), music (including poetry, drama and history) and literacy.[35][36] Girls rarely received formal education. At writing school, the youngest students learned the alphabet by song, then later by copying the shapes of letters with a stylus on a waxed wooden tablet. After some schooling, the sons of poor or middle class families often learnt a trade by apprenticeship, whether with their father or another tradesman.[35] By around 350 BC, it was common for children at schools in Athens to also study various arts such as drawing, painting, and sculpture. The richest students continued their education by studying with sophists, from whom they could learn subjects such as rhetoric, mathematics, geography, natural history, politics, and logic.[35][36] Some of Athens’ greatest schools of higher education included the Lyceum (the so-called Peripatetic school founded by Aristotle of Stageira) and the Platonic Academy (founded by Plato of Athens). The education system of the wealthy ancient Greeks is also called Paideia. In the subsequent Roman empire, Greek was the primary language of science. Advanced scientific research and teaching was mainly carried on in the Hellenistic side of the Roman empire, in Greek.

The education system in the Greek city-state of Sparta was entirely different, designed to create warriors with complete obedience, courage, and physical perfection. At the age of seven, boys were taken away from their homes to live in school dormitories or military barracks. There they were taught sports, endurance and fighting, and little else, with harsh discipline. Most of the population was illiterate.[35][36]

The first schools in Ancient Rome arose by the middle of the 4th century BC.[37] These schools were concerned with the basic socialization and rudimentary education of young Roman children. The literacy rate in the 3rd century BC has been estimated as around one percent to two percent.[38] We have very few primary sources or accounts of Roman educational process until the 2nd century BC,[37] during which there was a proliferation of private schools in Rome.[38] At the height of the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire, the Roman educational system gradually found its final form. Formal schools were established, which served paying students (very little in the way of free public education as we know it can be found).[39] Normally, both boys and girls were educated, though not necessarily together.[39] In a system much like the one that predominates in the modern world, the Roman education system that developed arranged schools in tiers. The educator Quintilian recognized the importance of starting education as early as possible, noting that “memory … not only exists even in small children, but is specially retentive at that age”.[40] A Roman student would progress through schools just as a student today might go from elementary school to middle school, then to high school, and finally college. Progression depended more on ability than age[39] with great emphasis being placed upon a student’s ingenium or inborn “gift” for learning,[41] and a more tacit emphasis on a student’s ability to afford high-level education. Only the Roman elite would expect a complete formal education. A tradesman or farmer would expect to pick up most of his vocational skills on the job. Higher education in Rome was more of a status symbol than a practical concern.

It has been argued that literacy rates in the Greco-Roman world were seldom more than 20 percent; averaging perhaps not much above 10 percent in the Roman empire, though with wide regional variations, probably never rising above 5 percent in the western provinces,[42] and that the literate in classical Greece did not much exceed 5 percent of the population.[43] The argument for these claims is that ancient governments did not invest in public education.

As to ancient times, as far back as 3500 BC, formal education was reserved for a chosen class in order to serve 3 goals; religion, govt service and military.

As far as the “business” of healthcare, of course there was the study of medicine as far back as the beginning of mankind. The context of “business of healthcare” is this current dispute between religious based instituitions vs Oboobi/Govt. And in that sense, it was indeed the “Church” that was in the sector long before the govt got involved. And this is repeated time and time again on a global basis.

Simple example, in the colonial times, it was missionaries that brought formal education and medical services to the colonies. Over time, demand became so great that the govt stepped in to provide the services more universally, either by filling in with more hospitals and schools and/or nationalizing the pre-existing religious-based facilities.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I hope the Catholic Church does not yield on this matter. If they lack the courage to resist, who will? Will the Supreme Court defend our religious liberty?

On an additional note, what happens to all the people employed by these Catholic organizations? Some will find similar jobs, but not all. Do we need this additional burden? What will this do to the “recovery”?

talkingpoints on March 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I think the first thing the bishops should do is close down the schools at end of this school year. Let 2.5 millions new students show up at the public schools next fall with no new money. That realy go over well right before the election.

E. Kiefaber on March 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

At the time, some commenters wrote that this has been Obama’s plan all along — to force religious charities out of business to make people more dependent on government. Others, including myself, figure that Obama just thinks the bishops are bluffing, and wants to engage in a high-stakes bout of brinksmanship to force them to kneel to secular authority over doctrine.

Obama is not your father’s Democrat. He represents the worst of the leftist ideology. He figures that this is a win-win situation for him; whether the Church bow down to him or stays true to God and closes shop, Obama sees himself as the victor.

He has now 3 years of “accomplishments” to show what he is up to. Mainstream Democrats may not want to follow him that far, and perhaps they could force him to back down from his worst deviations; but he and his closest advisors are set to implant their model NO MATTER WHAT. Didn’t you listen to his Energy Secretary on gas prices? Hey Ed, wasn’t you the one who wrote about that one? Are you too, one of those who thinks Obama is merely a well-intentioned incompetent? Or is it the case that you are trying that nothing bad happens to your nice blog you have there?

APasserBy on March 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

When Jarrett was forced out of City Hall in 1995 — even though she was close to Daley — “the Obamas were horrified, their worst suspicions about the world confirmed.”

Pay back is a b1tch, just ask Jarrett….who resigned and went back to Chicago again?

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Bishops got a late night visit from Johna Galt?

kurtzz3 on March 1, 2012 at 12:05 PM

But it is not just directed at the Church – I am a small business owner with 12 employees. I do offer health insurance. I am also a practicing Catholic – why should I have to pay for some staff member’s contraception or abortifacients or sterilization? I don’t condemn them if they do that, but that is their private decision, so they should pay for it – for heaven’s sake, my daughter just miscarried a baby! Does anyone even care what a miscarriage does to a family? And you ask me to pay for people who might want this as birth control????
This whole issue is about freedom of religion! Why is it that we have to accommodate Muslims (I personally know Muslims and have nothing against them as long as they allow me to practice my faith also) with all sorts of things (remember the mosque plans at Ground Zero or the special wash basins at some school?), but when it is a Christian, or heaven forbid, a Catholic (no crosses in class rooms!) living their faith, then it is offensive to others and must be stopped at all costs!

mkosin on March 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

in my opinion the popular decision should stand.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

You didn’t answer my question, dumba$$.

Some “libertarian” you are.

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 12:07 PM

E. Kiefaber on March 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

It would be good for Jarrett and the rest of lefty women surrounding Obama to get a lesson in humility….Catholic style ;)

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Actually Nathor, I remember Christians being persecuted quite a bit. I don’t remember pagans being used as torches at Coliseums or fed to lions.

Christians forged many of those martyrs stories. however, what pagans did to christians was much less than what christians did to pagans. just read that Vlasis Rassias. most of his list of crimes where well documented by the church itself.

“Demolish Them” is a hopelessly slanted source. Vlasis Rassias is an activist trying to bring back worship of Zeuss.

eh, he sure has reasons to fear the church.

So you wish to pogrom the Catholics, Nathor, over civil struggles in the fourth century? It’s not like my forbears in Ireland didn’t get this treatment. Their parochial schools were shut down also. They were treated as third-class citizens.

See “Laws in Ireland for the Suppression of Popery”:

http://library.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/

I might as well wear green while it’s still legal.
theCork on March 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM

so, the protestant heretics did not appreciate the pope bigotry? who can blame someone for loving their head upon their neck.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM

You didn’t answer my question, dumba$$.

Some “libertarian” you are.

Kingfisher on March 1, 2012 at 12:07 PM

yes I did. it was understood that I think the court decision is wrong.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM

But it is not just directed at the Church – I am a small business owner with 12 employees. I do offer health insurance. I am also a practicing Catholic – why should I have to pay for some staff member’s contraception or abortifacients or sterilization? I don’t condemn them if they do that, but that is their private decision, so they should pay for it – for heaven’s sake, my daughter just miscarried a baby! Does anyone even care what a miscarriage does to a family? And you ask me to pay for people who might want this as birth control????
This whole issue is about freedom of religion! Why is it that we have to accommodate Muslims (I personally know Muslims and have nothing against them as long as they allow me to practice my faith also) with all sorts of things (remember the mosque plans at Ground Zero or the special wash basins at some school?), but when it is a Christian, or heaven forbid, a Catholic (no crosses in class rooms!) living their faith, then it is offensive to others and must be stopped at all costs!
mkosin on March 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Don’t worry – libertarian stalwart nathor will defend the states right to force you to do what is really right instead of allowing you to assert your religious views on society at large /sarc

gwelf on March 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM

mkosin on March 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Well you know Valerie Jarrett was born in Iran right?

Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran to American parents James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman. Her father, a pathologist and geneticist, ran a hospital for children in Shiraz, as part of a program where American doctors and agricultural experts sought to help jump-start developing countries’ health and farming efforts

I am guessing Jarrett would be more than happy given her history with Catholics in Chicago to have the Catholic Church out of the hospital business….Apparently Barack Obama’s administration is all about Jarrett getting even and settling scores.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Catholic church bluffing? It is obama that is raising on on a pair of deuces.

dunce on March 1, 2012 at 12:15 PM

so, the protestant heretics did not appreciate the pope bigotry? who can blame someone for loving their head upon their neck.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Uh Huh because it was different when the State cut people’s heads off in the name of the General Will….yeah that majority rule it was the schiznitz in good ole France back in the day. They even gave their favorite form of execution a name “The National Razor”

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I have relayed this story to friends many times. We have a special needs child who has required more than one surgical procedure during her childhood. We have experienced both secular and Catholic hospitals, namely, St. Vincent in Indianapolis.

For a parent who has experienced firsthand the visceral difference in spiritual presence that one feels at Catholic Hospital as compared to a secular institution, this article hits home. There really is a different spirit at St. Vincent, a warm comforting spirit that just isn’t felt at other hospitals we’ve experienced. I presume that other Catholic hospitals are similar, and it would be a crime if that option were no longer available to believers.

Reason 1,436,987 to kick deceptive, evil president out of office.

guitarman67 on March 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM

the church DID NOT INVENT the business of healthcare and education. it has been around long before there was a pope in this planet. once upon a time the church DID HAVE THE MONOPOLY of healthcare and education, those times where called the dark ages.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

As to ancient times, as far back as 3500 BC, formal education was reserved for a chosen class in order to serve 3 goals; religion, govt service and military.

ok.

As far as the “business” of healthcare, of course there was the study of medicine as far back as the beginning of mankind. The context of “business of healthcare” is this current dispute between religious based instituitions vs Oboobi/Govt. And in that sense, it was indeed the “Church” that was in the sector long before the govt got involved. And this is repeated time and time again on a global basis.

the church was indeed present before the government in health care, unless you consider hospitals funded by kings and nobles state intervetion. but the church did not exactly invented modern medicine or even ancient medicine. which was the claim as was replying to.

Simple example, in the colonial times, it was missionaries that brought formal education and medical services to the colonies. Over time, demand became so great that the govt stepped in to provide the services more universally, either by filling in with more hospitals and schools and/or nationalizing the pre-existing religious-based facilities.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM

what you claim is that religious sects where the first to provide education and healthcare in this country and other colonial countries.I dont disagree, but, so what? those colonial days are not exactly a time i wish to return to. did you know witches were still burned those days?
unfortunately now we have a liberal government that decided to regulate healthcare insurances. I am against that.
That the catholic church is forced to follow the law of the land, its all good.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Do anyone know the link to the cartoon?

Conger on March 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Uh Huh because it was different when the State cut people’s heads off in the name of the General Will….yeah that majority rule it was the schiznitz in good ole France back in the day. They even gave their favorite form of execution a name “The National Razor”

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I dont understand this hatred of the french revolution. that revolutions many times bring other horrors is well known. but still people saw the injustice of the feudal system blessed by the church and rose against it.
the horrors of the french revolution should be well learned, so the mistakes of the past be not repeated.
however, they ideals of the french revolution, that ditched its tyrants and established a government of the people, by the people, to the people are well alive today in our great and glorious american republic.
And its BY THE PEOPLE! not BY THE CHURCH, or BY THE POPE!

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

again, scalia words: nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Again and for the FINAL time:

Your Scalia cite comes from:

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

That’s 1990.

Smith was superseded on the Federal level by Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993…

That’s 1993.

and

by Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).

Again, that’s 1993.

1993 comes after 1990; therefore, what Scalia said in Smith is eeeeeeerrrrreeeelllleeeevvvaaannnnttttt.

In fact, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed EXPRESSLY due to the outrage of the American public at the Smith decision.

Once more, with feeling and the hope that it sinks into your obviously thick skull, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 passed the House UNANIMOUSLY. It passed the Senate 97-3. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. The Supreme Court upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as to the Federal government in 1997.

You can continue to paste Scalia’s words, but they are as relevant to this matter as CJ Taney’s definition of slaves as property in the Dred Scott decision.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I dont understand this hatred of the french revolution.

Obviously, you don’t understand the French Revolution. Le Terror consumed its own and led to dictatorship à la Napoleon. There was no “liberté, égalité, et fraternité.”

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM

and by the way, maybe the Catholic church plan is to provide all healthcare in the US, so then can the worshiped as the giver of health thus replacing the state, the free market, and god itself. this kind of strange reasoning goes both ways.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Ha. Even for you, this is beyond pathetic. Nothing at all is stopping anyone from opening a hospital today, in compliance with the rules and regs of course. The Catholic Church “plan”, as always, has been just to do their part, in conformance with the Gospel.

A “thank you” from the government would be nice.

I won’t hold my breath.

dissent555 on March 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM

That the catholic church is forced to follow the law of the land, its all good.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM

That’s a lot of claptrap and nonsense. The 1st Amendment covers religious freedom of worship in this country. That’s the LAW, the government has to follow. The Constitution put limitations on what the government can do to individuals and groups of individuals.

If you had any clue what a Libertarian was in the first place you would know that.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Nathor
you show a complete IGNORENCE to the facts of history! In short Rome fell not because of the Church but because the empire was split in to 2 halves. The western half fell to the barbarians after Constantine moved the Capital from Rome to Constantinople. He did this for reasons of trade & money! When the western half of the empire fell the eastern half became what today is called the Byzantine Empire. Byzantium fell not because of the Church but because of the Muslim scum attacking anything & everything Christian, and that is why the 1st crusade started, but that is another story! But it is so typical of you left wingers to lie about and completely distort history, all good Nazis do this, you wouldn’t happen to be a Muslim too??

Confederate on March 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I dont understand this hatred of the french revolution. nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Keep beklowing yourself. If you take Ritalin this would be a good time to see your doctor about having the dosage increased.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Remember in November: If you voted in the last election to prove you were not a RACIST, Vote this time to prove your not an IDIOT.
2eagles on March 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

This has the makings of a great bumpersticker … just need it to be shorter and catchier.

toby11 on March 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM

the church was indeed present before the government in health care, unless you consider hospitals funded by kings and nobles state intervetion. but the church did not exactly invented modern medicine or even ancient medicine. which was the claim as was replying to.

Simple example, in the colonial times, it was missionaries that brought formal education and medical services to the colonies. Over time, demand became so great that the govt stepped in to provide the services more universally, either by filling in with more hospitals and schools and/or nationalizing the pre-existing religious-based facilities.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM

what you claim is that religious sects where the first to provide education and healthcare in this country and other colonial countries.I dont disagree, but, so what? those colonial days are not exactly a time i wish to return to. did you know witches were still burned those days?
unfortunately now we have a liberal government that decided to regulate healthcare insurances. I am against that.
That the catholic church is forced to follow the law of the land, its all good.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Hah. Weasling down. Healthcare is the spectrum of developing drugs, providing medical facilities and services and even payment. You’ve now went from “Churches did NOT invent HC” to if they did, so what, they’re still evil and deserve to be broken.

Like I said before, you’re a putz grasping at straws and distortions to support your outrageous outrage at the Catholics. bugger off.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

But it is so typical of you left wingers to lie about and completely distort history, all good Nazis do this, you wouldn’t happen to be a Muslim too??

Confederate on March 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM

No nathor is easily confused, and has a hard time processing. Apparently nathor used to be a Catholic, and the experience was so horrible he became an atheist. It doesn’t come across as a college conversion to atheism. They don’t as a rule pick one religion out of the many to obsess over.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Remember in November: If you voted in the last election to prove you were not a RACIST, Vote this time to prove your not an IDIOT.
2eagles on March 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

This has the makings of a great bumpersticker … just need it to be shorter and catchier.

toby11 on March 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM

If you voted in the last election to prove you were not a RACIST, Vote this time to prove your not an IDIOT.

It will however fit on a t-shirt and make a lovely desktop wallpaper:)

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 12:54 PM

This can all be resolved in November. Then we won’t have to listen to nathor’s blathering anymore. You can’t debate him because he will never admit he is wrong.

Vince on March 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM

In fact, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed EXPRESSLY due to the outrage of the American public at the Smith decision.

Once more, with feeling and the hope that it sinks into your obviously thick skull, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 passed the House UNANIMOUSLY. It passed the Senate 97-3. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. The Supreme Court upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as to the Federal government in 1997.

You can continue to paste Scalia’s words, but they are as relevant to this matter as CJ Taney’s definition of slaves as property in the Dred Scott decision.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I am a bit confused here is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 part of the constitution? if not, why are posters allways claming the 1st ammendment.

anyway, you have a point. I just wonder what if “preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of their religion” can be applied to the catholic church in this case.
also, I believe Obamacare had some provision that overruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. and its ofcourse its possible because a law made by the congress can allways override a law made by the congress.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM

what you claim is that religious sects where the first to provide education and healthcare in this country and other colonial countries.I dont disagree, but, so what? those colonial days are not exactly a time i wish to return to. did you know witches were still burned those days?
nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM

One track mind. Care to list off the colonial nations. Your Jr. High edumaction only told you about the US colonial history.

Listen, Georgie S., NO ONE is advocating a return to colonial days, just as no one is advocating banning C/A/S.

When I linked missionaries to colonies, I had in mind South America, Africa and Asia. Were there abuses by these missionaries? Of course, but the noble attempt was to make life better and to bring the Gospel for the hereafter. When the missionaries were swamped by demands for services, that was when the govts stepped in to supply the demand by building out the infrastructure and oftentimes nationalizing the current infrastructure.

Did you know that the natives were doing all kinds of atrocious things as well before the missionaries came? In your warped worldview, the missionaries would have done greater good by simply staying out and letting the natives continue cannibalizing, post-birth abortions (for blindness, deafness and other deformities and simply for being twins (a sign of demon possession) and/or making sacrifice to implacable evil spirits), dying from lack of simple sanitation and curable diseases and so on.

Seeing how vehement you are, it’s clear that secularism is your religion and you wish to impose by force of govt the doctrine of said religion.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

This can all be resolved in November. Then we won’t have to listen to nathor’s blathering anymore. You can’t debate him because he will never admit he is wrong.

Vince on March 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Nathor doesn’t know what he’s debating, he just wants to discuss why the Catholic Church is you know horrible. I doubt seriously he thinks his confused diatribes are going to get any validation.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I am a bit confused here is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 part of the constitution? if not, why are posters allways claming the 1st ammendment.

anyway, you have a point. I just wonder what if “preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of their religion” can be applied to the catholic church in this case.
also, I believe Obamacare had some provision that overruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. and its ofcourse its possible because a law made by the congress can allways override a law made by the congress.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM

The Congress of the United States cannot override the U.S. Constitution – the LAW of the LAND. This is why everyone keeps stating the same thing to you, wait for the Supreme Court to hear the lawsuit against Obamacare to determine if it is Constitutional.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Obviously, you don’t understand the French Revolution. Le Terror consumed its own and led to dictatorship à la Napoleon. There was no “liberté, égalité, et fraternité.”

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM

you rail its historical outcome its some reason. but miss the larger point.
the french revolution overthrew the whole unjust french feudal system that is no better than most despotic regimes we still see around the world.
its republican ideals, spread across europe and the world, and now, absolutist monarchies are in danger of extinction.
even napoleon, which was a tyrant, made the “code civil”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
which, among other “forbade privileges based on birth,” and “allowed freedom of religion”
I know that “privileges based on birth”, are not a important fight in these days, but back then it was revolutionary and its important not to forget how and who challenged the feudal status quo.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Nathor doesn’t know what he’s debating, he just wants to discuss why the Catholic Church is you know horrible. I doubt seriously he thinks his confused diatribes are going to get any validation.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Any mention of the word “Catholic” draws out the anti-Catholic bigots. They’re willing to lose all individual human rights if only the object of their hatred, and everyone part of it, are destroyed.

theCork on March 1, 2012 at 1:15 PM

its republican ideals, spread across europe and the world, and now, absolutist monarchies are in danger of extinction.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

They’ve just been replaced with regimes posing as democracies and communism.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

My personal experience amuses me and I think makes an important point.

I am not Catholic but two of my three children were born in a Catholic hospital because it was the best hospital in our area.

When preparing for the birth of my second child (by planned section) I was repeatedly asked if I was having my tubes tied. At some point I told the person asking the question that they were freaking me out. I DID NOT want my tubes tied and their repeated questioning about it had me concerned that I was going to wake up and find that by mistake my tubes had been tied. I’m not sure if they just smiled or laughed but they did explain that the reason they kept asking was it was a special situation if I did want my tubes tied. That after my baby was delivered, before the surgery was completed, they would have to put me in an ambulance, take me to the other hospital to have the procedure done because they didn’t do it.

Point is, almost three decades ago, the Catholic hospital was going to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the wishes of their patients. They were not and never made any attempt to enforce their values on me but, on the contrary, were making the extra effort to respect the wishes of those whose values were in actual conflict with theirs.

Same goes for my daughter who spent an extraordinary four years at the University of Notre Dame. No one ever tried to convert her!

bertielou on March 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Do anyone know the link to the cartoon?

Conger on March 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Here ya go.

http://www.investors.com/image/TOONclr0206.jpg.cms
by Michael Ramirez – February 04, 2012

diogenes on March 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Any mention of the word “Catholic” draws out the anti-Catholic bigots. They’re willing to lose all individual human rights if only the object of their hatred, and everyone part of it, are destroyed.

theCork on March 1, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Pretty much. They don’t seem to understand that once religion is relegated to the dust bin the state will force you to worship it.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Did you know that the natives were doing all kinds of atrocious things as well before the missionaries came? In your warped worldview, the missionaries would have done greater good by simply staying out and letting the natives continue cannibalizing, post-birth abortions (for blindness, deafness and other deformities and simply for being twins (a sign of demon possession) and/or making sacrifice to implacable evil spirits), dying from lack of simple sanitation and curable diseases and so on.

I knew that. I now railing against missionaries here. this is unrelated to health care.

Seeing how vehement you are, it’s clear that secularism is your religion and you wish to impose by force of govt the doctrine of said religion.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

i lost you, this is a non sequitur.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM

its republican ideals, spread across europe and the world, and now, absolutist monarchies are in danger of extinction.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

They’ve just been replaced with regimes posing as democracies and communism.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

ah, ok, so your solution is?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

The mandate on contraception/abortifacients/sterilisations is not before the Court at this time. Several suits have been filed at the district level. Striking down the c/a/s mandate would not overturn Obamacare since it is a HHS rule.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Exactly.

a capella on March 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

i lost you, this is a non sequitur.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You’re just lost period.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM

All part of Obama’s grand plan. The Bishops aren’t bluffing – not that they might not cave if left to their own devices, I am fairly certain they would roll over like trained puppies. The Pope won’t let them.

But it would precipitate a crisis, and an excuse to nationalize health care. Obama doesn’t need legislation – he has already demonstrated his willingness to operate outside the law by fiat and dare anyone to do anything about it.

To those who don’t like the eventual GOP nominee: suck it up, Frances. You need to cowboy up and vote for him anyway, else you will help reelect Obama to finish the job he started.

“OBAMA 2012: Because he’s only just begun to finish off America”

Adjoran on March 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Why should teh Vatican bend to the dictates of the state … especially when it’s protected by the 1st Amendment?

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 9:32 AM

tell that to the mormons that cannot have polygamy.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM

yes, that true, the majority can impose certain values. such as, no polygamy. no drugs, no alcool and its all constitutional. but its was imposed by the elected majority, not by the vatican. big diference.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Sounds like you’re not sure, nathorn. So which is it, the Vatican or the majority saying the mormons can’t have polygamy?

You are the true libertarian. Yoou talk like one too…just like Romney the liberal…flip-flopping all over the place just to try to have people kiss up to you. Well, hanothing, you’re an idiot and a troll.

timberline on March 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

If this was about condoms the women in question could get them free from Planned Parenthood.

The contraceptive mandate is more than just providing condoms.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Sure they can, and sure it’s about more than condoms, but I’m talking about the story-telling process: Milly died because she couldn’t get a hospital bed, because the Catholic hospitals closed up shop because they didn’t want to provide condoms for somebody.

And as I said, with the number of people on the right side who squirm at these stories, and can be made to reuse media imagery, nobody’s going to remember “rights of conscience” everybody is going to see it as the Catholic church took their ball and went home.

Axeman on March 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

ah, ok, so your solution is?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Solutions to what? The US is one of the few nations that actually tried to incorporate “We the People” by crafting documents that severely limited the power government had over it’s citizens. Most other countries either became outright socialist, communist or “democracies” … fronts for shadow socialist movements and corrupt politicians.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Hah. Weasling down. Healthcare is the spectrum of developing drugs, providing medical facilities and services and even payment. You’ve now went from “Churches did NOT invent HC” to if they did, so what, they’re still evil and deserve to be broken.

Like I said before, you’re a putz grasping at straws and distortions to support your outrageous outrage at the Catholics. bugger off.

AH_C on March 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

i never advocated such things like “breaking up the church”. quote me! I did claim the catholic church was totalitarian,this is not really something with disagree with is it?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Solutions to what? The US is one of the few nations that actually tried to incorporate “We the People” by crafting documents that severely limited the power government had over it’s citizens. Most other countries either became outright socialist, communist or “democracies” … fronts for shadow socialist movements and corrupt politicians.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I do agree with you on that. see, we can find a common ground.
but what are the “shadow socialist movements”?. I am very skeptical of conspiracy theories…

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM

A good argument can be made that we are heading to a new dark age dominated by secular thought with the power of the state used to suppress religion. A new monasticism may be necessary to preserve the church while waiting for the collapse that this will cause.

Rumpole of the Bailey on March 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM

however, they ideals of the french revolution, that ditched its tyrants and established a government of the people, by the people, to the people are well alive today in our great and glorious american republic.
And its BY THE PEOPLE! not BY THE CHURCH, or BY THE POPE!

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM

You’re hatred of Christianity is breath-taking. I’ll keep you in prayer.

theCork on March 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM

but what are the “shadow socialist movements”?. I am very skeptical of conspiracy theories…

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I mean they claim they’re for democracy while pushing for more government power and control … like our democrats here.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Has anyone pointed out that the obvious alternative scenario is:
1. Catholic institutions continue operating as before.
2. They call Obama’s bluff by not buying the new “insurance”.
3. If they have to go to jail, go to jail but refuse to buy the “insurance”.

joe_doufu on March 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Sounds like you’re not sure, nathorn. So which is it, the Vatican or the majority saying the mormons can’t have polygamy?

You are the true libertarian. Yoou talk like one too…just like Romney the liberal…flip-flopping all over the place just to try to have people kiss up to you. Well, hanothing, you’re an idiot and a troll.

timberline on March 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

both!
regarding polygamy and hard drugs, i dont know what i support as a libertarian. i am divided.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM

i never advocated such things like “breaking up the church”. quote me! I did claim the catholic church was totalitarian,this is not really something with disagree with is it?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM

No, it’s really not totalitarian. Islam is totalitarian.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I am a bit confused here

It shows.

is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 part of the constitution?

No, but it is a Federal law that has been upheld as constitutional.

“if not, why are posters allways claming the 1st ammendment.”

Because the issue is the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

The reason that I brought up the RFRA was because you kept quoting Scalia in Smith. RFRA superseded Smith rendering it irrelevant.

anyway, you have a point. I just wonder what if “preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of their religion” can be applied to the catholic church in this case.

No. The First Amendment says “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW….” It doesn’t say, “The Catholic Church shall make no law…” The Constitution protects us from the government. You do not have to be a Catholic. You do not have to work for a Catholic organisation. The Catholic Church cannot deprive you of due process, life, liberty, and/or property.

While the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), recognised a right to privacy and a right to use contraception, it did not recognise a constitutional right to the free or reduced-cost provision of same. In fact, the Court has long held that there is not an accompanying right to have the government provide you with ability to use or access your rights under the Constitution. For example, you have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to demand the government provide you with free firearms or an employer provide you with free ammunition. You have a right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and a right to petition the government for redress of your grievances. You do not have the right to demand the Federal government provide you and your friends with airline tickets and accommodations at the Mayflower Hotel so that you can all go to Washington and protest at the Capitol.

“also, I believe Obamacare had some provision that overruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

No, it didn’t. This is a rule that was enunciated by Sebelius and then changed. Furthermore, it doesn’t really matter because the RFRA is constitutional and the government cannot infringe upon the free exercise of religion without surviving strict scrutiny. Under the RFRA, the government is prevented from passing laws that substantially burden a the free exercise of religion.

For the sake of argument, we can grant that the government has a legitimate governmental interest in healthcare and even access to reproductive services, but that interest alone is not enough, in an of itself to meet the strict scrutiny requirements in order to pass constitutional muster and those imposed under RFRA.

The additional questions the government must answer and, IMHO in the case it cannot, are:

1) Is the governmental interest compelling?; and

2) Is imposing the HHS mandate on an employer, with a religious objection, in furtherance of that compelling interest?

Fortunately, the Court ruled on a case last term that gives us guidance and it doesn’t even have to do with religion. It was, however, a First Amendment case wholly secular in issue.

The issue was: Does the government have significant enough “compelling interest” that allows the First Amendment rights of merchants to be burdened by the further regulation of the sale of violent video games to minors when said regulations will only have a “marginal impact” on said sales?

Last year, the Court ruled in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, No. 08–1448 (2011), that “even if the sale of violent video games to minors could be deterred further by increasing regulation, “the government does not have a compelling interest in each marginal percentage point by which its goals are advanced.”

Why is this important?

Because Secretary Sebelius has admitted that the contraception/abortifacient/sterilisation mandate will only marginally affect the access of same to women with insurance. Furthermore, she has said that “contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”

Most importantly, she has already grandfathered insurance policies that do not provide contraception/abortifacient/sterilisation. 55% of insurance policies have already been grandfathered and they do not contain coverage for that which the Obama administration would force religious organisations to provide to their employees in contravention of their religious doctrine and consciences.

“and its ofcourse its possible because a law made by the congress can allways override a law made by the congress.”

Yes, Congress can “override” its own laws, but it cannot “override” the Constitution.

I understand you claim that to be a libertarian. Darling, I am a libertarian. You are not.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I mean they claim they’re for democracy while pushing for more government power and control … like our democrats here.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM

ok. but its mostly because it gives them more money. I dont think they have another agenda to fullfil.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM

If you look at the Walmart web site under $4 / month prescriptions, you will find two different birth control pills available for $9 / month without any insurance requirment. That is only $108/yr for all the sex you can manage.

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/customer_list.pdf on page 5 –> Sprintek or Tri-Sprintek

Dasher on March 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM

anyway, you have a point. I just wonder what if “preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of their religion” can be applied to the catholic church in this case.

No. The First Amendment says “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW….” It doesn’t say, “The Catholic Church shall make no law…” The Constitution protects us from the government. You do not have to be a Catholic. You do not have to work for a Catholic organisation. The Catholic Church cannot deprive you of due process, life, liberty, and/or property.

before continuing, you have to be honest in your arguments. you claimed that my scalia quotes of the 1st amendment are not applicable, because of the religion resurrection act. then I quote you the religion resurrection act, and you then go for the 1st amendment again.

if you are to quote the 1st amendment, they reply to the scalia argument.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:06 PM

“I did claim the catholic church was totalitarian,this is not really something with disagree with is it?”

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM

May I disagree?

As I’ve stated, I’m not Catholic but two of my children were born in a Catholic hospital and one was educated at a Catholic University. I have never experienced this “totalitarian” Catholic attitude you imagine.

bertielou on March 1, 2012 at 2:11 PM

regarding polygamy and hard drugs, i dont know what i support as a libertarian. i am divided.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM

At least you’re honest, even if you mind is scrambled. Life is not complicated. You shouldn’t make life complicated. Try organizing your thoughts and focus on the issues. In this case the issue is about First Amendment rights and the Commerce clause. It’s not about the Catholic Church. Other faiths such as the Lutherns and The Southern Baptist Convention, among others, are fighting against this mandate, not to mention the Healthcare Providers who have to supply this service “free” of cost to the customer. The MSM is drumming this up as a Catholic thing.

It will all blow over once either Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional or insurance companies sue the government for overreaching their constitutional authority….all based on the Commerce Clause.

timberline on March 1, 2012 at 2:11 PM

i never advocated such things like “breaking up the church”. quote me! I did claim the catholic church was totalitarian,this is not really something with disagree with is it?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM

No, it’s really not totalitarian. Islam is totalitarian.

darwin on March 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM

i not saying that Christianity is totalitarian. for sure protestant Christianity is not. i am claiming that the catholic church is totalitarian.
historically, it was totalitarian. but never mind that. does not the catholic church now considers all other Christian faiths heretic?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

“I did claim the catholic church was totalitarian,this is not really something with disagree with is it?”

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM

This is really not something to disagree with is it?

Meaning everyone agrees with your opinion of the Catholic Church being totalitarian, and accept your opinion. The answer would be NO.

Is English your second language? It would explain your inability to process the simplest concepts stated in English. The last phrase reads like someone of perhaps Arabic descent having difficultly with English language usage.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Way back in the early 60′s the left was screaming about the Catholic schools and home schooling and the same thing came up. Someone added up what these schools do and the Catholic families were paying their school taxes plus what the Catholic schools needed to exist. The dust quickly settled. Same thing here and what’s going to happen is the States are going to get wise and pass a bunch of laws, guaranteed by the Constitution, and the White House will shut up and be added to the list of boo boos they are responsible for.

mixplix on March 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM

May I disagree?

As I’ve stated, I’m not Catholic but two of my children were born in a Catholic hospital and one was educated at a Catholic University. I have never experienced this “totalitarian” Catholic attitude you imagine.

bertielou on March 1, 2012 at 2:11 PM

now they dont have the power to be totalitarian.
but they still think they are the right church and consider other churches, your denomination as well heretic.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

i not saying that Christianity is totalitarian. for sure protestant Christianity is not. i am claiming that the catholic church is totalitarian.
historically, it was totalitarian. but never mind that. does not the catholic church now considers all other Christian faiths heretic?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

You better quit while you’re ahead. You obviously have fried brains.
Your thinking and composition prove that. What makes you claim that the catholic church is totalitarian? Maybe if you give some examples of what you consider “totalitarian” we can help you through these delusions.

timberline on March 1, 2012 at 2:33 PM

This is really not something to disagree with is it?

Meaning everyone agrees with your opinion of the Catholic Church being totalitarian, and accept your opinion. The answer would be NO.

Is English your second language? It would explain your inability to process the simplest concepts stated in English. The last phrase reads like someone of perhaps Arabic descent having difficultly with English language usage.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM

arabic? lol!
so, they are democratic or something?

well, let me prove to you with an example from the last century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1953

Franco had wanted a full concordat with royal rights of patronage i.e. the right to choose bishops. The Vatican, uncertain of his future, compromised by offering him a less official “convention” which gave him only a limited role in choosing bishops. After Franco’s regime managed to survive World War II, the terms of the Convention of 1941 were formalized in Article 7 of the Concordat of 1953.

In contrast to the anticlericalism of the Popular Front, the Francoist regime established policies that were highly favorable to the Catholic Church, which was restored to its previous status as the official religion of Spain. In addition to receiving government subsidies, the church regained its dominant position in the education system, and laws conformed to Catholic dogma.

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.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:34 PM

now they dont have the power to be totalitarian.
but they still think they are the right church and consider other churches, your denomination as well heretic.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Why should that bother you? Do Muslims bother you? They are totalitarian, yet you don’t pop off about them. Why? Afraid of getting your head chopped off? Chickenshit.

timberline on March 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Hey Dr. Evil, you may be on to something. I just assumed that sentence was a typo. I mess up sentences all the time when I go back and edit. I don’t hold anyone to high standards for typing, grammar, spelling or even sentence structure since I can’t do it myself. But in this case, reading some of the other comments, it could be indicative of something far more significant and interesting.

bertielou on March 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Totalitarianism is a system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. The Obama administration is totalitarian even now to dictating what goes on in the privacy of one’s bedrooms.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is a theocracy.

Happy Nomad on March 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Why should that bother you? Do Muslims bother you? They are totalitarian, yet you don’t pop off about them. Why? Afraid of getting your head chopped off? Chickenshit.

timberline on March 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM

believe me, I am very much against Islam. way more than any Christian sect.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

…Is English your second language? It would explain your inability to process the simplest concepts stated in English. The last phrase reads like someone of perhaps Arabic descent having difficultly with English language usage.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM

A week or two ago I concluded Eastern European, like maybe Russian or Polish.

slickwillie2001 on March 1, 2012 at 2:44 PM

arabic? lol!
so, they are democratic or something?

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:34 PM

You didn’t answer my question. I am not interested in your Catholic bashing.

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM

before continuing, you have to be honest in your arguments. you claimed that my scalia quotes of the 1st amendment are not applicable, because of the religion resurrection act. then I quote you the religion resurrection act, and you then go for the 1st amendment again.

if you are to quote the 1st amendment, they reply to the scalia argument.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:06 PM

You are quoting Scalia’s opinion in SMITH, which was superseded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. I really don’t know what more to say to you other than “Go audit a basic con law class.”

The RFRA restored the free exercise clause to what it was before the Smith ruling. At the Federal level, Smith is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T, as is Justice Scalia’s opinion in it.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Totalitarianism theocracy is a system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. The Obama Catholic Church administration is totalitarian theocractic even now to dictating what goes on in the privacy of one’s bedrooms.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is a theocracy.

Happy Nomad on March 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM

there, fixed.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:53 PM

You are quoting Scalia’s opinion in SMITH, which was superseded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. I really don’t know what more to say to you other than “Go audit a basic con law class.”

The RFRA restored the free exercise clause to what it was before the Smith ruling. At the Federal level, Smith is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T, as is Justice Scalia’s opinion in it.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM

ok. lets finish this conversation then. I am by no means, a legal expert.

nathor on March 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4