Thread: Catholic Church 1, Obama 0

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

Why do you hate the Constitution?

I have nothing against the Constitution at all .... I have something against people who seek to use religion as a weapon, be it cultural or ideological.

I like what Garry Wills wrote on this matter:

"The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a 'conscience exemption.' It is a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics. This is religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.

...a man who believes that contraception is evil is an aberrant from the American norm, like the polygamist or the faith healer. "

Again people, the point to be made here is this:

“It is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich. But it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed up with the coercive power of the state.” - The Rev. William Lori

Well said...

I had no idea anybody was forcing kosher delis to make ham sandwiches. And here I thought this was about providing everybody who has medical insurance with an inexpensive birth control drug which would actually help reduce insurance costs. But lets see if the religious zealots can coerce everybody else to conform to their own views.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Right?? Everyone's tax dollars go towards something they don't believe in. I'm certain every single taxpayer out there, can find something they are not happy about having funded by their tax dollars.

This is undoubtedly true. As I brought up earlier, the Catholic Church came out against the Iraq war as a matter of religious conscience, yet I have not heard that using tax dollars of American Catholics to fund that war in any way violates their religious freedoms. If anyone can explain the principle behind why Catholics should pay to fund a war that is against their religion, but not contraception which is against their religion (although most Catholics think contraception is just fine), I would be interested in hearing it.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

This is undoubtedly true. As I brought up earlier, the Catholic Church came out against the Iraq war as a matter of religious conscience, yet I have not heard that using tax dollars of American Catholics to fund that war in any way violates their religious freedoms. If anyone can explain the principle behind why Catholics should pay to fund a war that is against their religion, but not contraception which is against their religion (although most Catholics think contraception is just fine), I would be interested in hearing it.

I don't think it is a close enough comparison to prove the point.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

This is undoubtedly true. As I brought up earlier, the Catholic Church came out against the Iraq war as a matter of religious conscience, yet I have not heard that using tax dollars of American Catholics to fund that war in any way violates their religious freedoms. If anyone can explain the principle behind why Catholics should pay to fund a war that is against their religion, but not contraception which is against their religion (although most Catholics think contraception is just fine), I would be interested in hearing it.

I think your analogy is amiss on two different fronts: One is that there are no tax dollars involved and the other is that Catholic organizations are being compelled by the government to purchase a product [insurance policy which covers contraception] that goes contrary to their religious conscience.

I’ll grant that it is impossible to spend tax dollars in ways that would offend absolutely no one. But being compelled to spend your own money---by the government----to purchase a product which goes against your conscience is getting awfully close to stepping on the First Amendment.

I’m sure the Catholic leaders see it that way, too.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

When you use an expansive and open-ended word like "conceivably" I would have to answer in the affirmative, especially when you consider that the the U.S. government has already trampled all over the polygamous marital traditions of the Mormon faith. I do not, however, think it's remotely likely in the foreseeable future nor is it something that, even though I am a strong advocate of same-sex marriage, I would even want.

Well, I don’t see how you could prevent it from happening. If the government can compel the RCC to purchase products which provide services that go against their religion the government can just as easily step in and compel them to perform gay marriages. I see absolutely no distinction between the two.

But it’s a side-bar in this debate and the only reason I bring it up is because this aspect of Obamacare is going to have some unintended consequences.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

In the end, this is really a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the importance of the secular purpose of public policy and, on the other, is how deeply held the religious objection to it is. In this case, I believe the public purpose is rather strong, whereas even the majority of American Catholics don't believe that contraception is immoral... and now, with Obama's compromise, the original objection is rendered entirely moot.

Moreover, federal regulations have required hospitals and universities to offer health plans that cover contraception since the year 2000 and similar requirements exist in 28 states, including Massachusetts, where then governor/now GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney signed a law almost identical to the one Obama approved... which is apparently a dire threat to religious freedoms that has, according to GOP challenger Rick Santorum, put us on a path that could eventually lead to the beheading of religious people.

I agree on the balancing act part. Where I disagree is in using the government to compel a religious organization to act in ways that are contrary to their religion. If ‘secular’ [people aren’t actually secular] folks feel strongly about having their birth control needs being met by their insurance policy they are free to chose another employer which would provide such coverage. Everyone is more free in that scenario and the First Amendment is left alone.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

And now, a question for you, good sir: Do you think the Blunt amendment is a good idea? Why or why not?

Yes, I like it because it preserves religious freedom.

Originally Posted by noahath

A reasonable argument could be made that the latter would be a more noble cause.

Tyranny is a noble cause? For what you deem reasonable is not freedom at all for some must be enslaved to achieve it.

Which is not surprising, because you don't know what freedom is. You're afraid of it, so seek to eliminate it.

Originally Posted by noahath

How about this: I challenge any Republican politician to give a public speech, or engage in a public debate without reference to God or religion.

The current GOP presidential candidates appear to be almost trying to turn the US into a theocracy by arguing who is the more religious among them. Religion has long been a major conservative platform, but last I knew it was issues like jobs, education, health care, defense, etc that citizens were more interested in. Have you ever heard Rick Santorum speak without pushing his religion?

Not even close to the same thing as what you originally claimed.

Just because a politician running for office says things which may appeal to certain religious individuals does not mean a political party is attempting to force a theocracy on this nation.

Your claim is utterly false.

Originally Posted by noahath

I have nothing against the Constitution at all .... I have something against people who seek to use religion as a weapon, be it cultural or ideological.

Except no one is. Instead we have The Obama attempting to prevent Catholics from practicing their religion. Would you continue to support him if he forced Islamic restaurants to serve bacon?

Watching this debate go on for so long it seems it really is Catholic Church 0, Obama 0, the people somewhere in the negatives.

Catholics have 2000 years of martyrdom to fall back on and when we see news clips of feds handcuffing bishops The Obama will lose big time.