Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
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:
Well said...“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
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.
Florida is the Mecca of rednecks. No offense to Mecca. Stephen Colbert
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.
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.Originally Posted by AdamKadmon
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.
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
Yes, I like it because it preserves religious freedom.Originally Posted by AdamKadmon
Last edited by Darth Hussein Omar; 02-17-2012 at 05:56 AM.
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.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
Watching this debate go on for so long it seems it really is Catholic Church 0, Obama 0, the people somewhere in the negatives.
- Frustrated Independent
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people.” - Penn Jillette amazingly enough, and I agree.
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.
Most of our socially progressive changes are attributed to the Quakers, who by the way, never bragged about it, or even talked about it. Which is the way that God actually works through his creation, human beings. The Left would want to separate these very religious people from the helping to change public policy. Yet without them, who knows where we would be today? The future is never a given, and only a catalyst begins any change, especially great social change.
I am completely convinced that what many on the Left want is a separtion between State and morality. Not the separation between church and state so much as that other separation. And they, many, are not even conscious to what they really want. To many of these morally confused people, religion equals morality. I am dead ass serious.
Yet there are still liberals like me, the old type, that see you cannot legislate morality, yet you can treat morality as something to be encouraged, to be taught in schools from early on, without turning it into religion, by showing the effects upon society of immoral behavior. Because oddly enough immoral behavior effects society in destructive ways, and the health of the individual as well as the society as a whole should be of prime importance.
We used to teach morality in public schools, in our tv programming. We are what we eat. We are what we are conditioned to be. You cannot escape that very basic human fact. Morality does not come naturally for humans, it is taught. If you do not teach it, and with with the traditional conduit for morality being kicked out of public schools, and with the kids being bombarded by immorality in popular culture, well, you are what you eat, what you are conditioned to be.
Many of the repubs use this religious and morality issue to appeal to a certain sect of repub voters. It is a proven winner for them. Yet none of the repubs want a theocracy, and those on the left who accused them of such are pissing on your leg, if they have healthy brains, and can discern what is going on.
You can separate church and state without separating morality and state, and that is what has been going on for years. The results of that has been far from good, and has created great disorder in our society, with so many more social ills, to the point that this nation is suffering from a grave illness, that is costing taxpayers more and more money to fight the effects of the separation of morality and state. It is exhibited by the complete immorality of our leaders, who are a reflection of the people that they sometimes reprsent in odd moments.
We have become, much more, moral atheists. Yet morality, and the enticement from the media and gov't to be immoral is what we have degenerated into, and it has dire consequences. Much of our morality, came from astute men observing over countless time, what certain sorts of human behavior yield, to the society, to the civilization, to the tribes and groups of people who live as social animals. And from this morality arose, yet some attribute it to other things, such as a revelation from the Creator. It does not matter from whence it came, what matters is the difference it makes in society, and how it affects that society.
"Like every other good thing in this world, leisure and culture have to be paid for. Fortunately, however, it is not the leisured and the cultured who have to pay." Aldous Huxley.