A decision that should deeply grieve and concern all Christians, but especially Catholics

[jonbhorton]

**Irrelevant under federal law.

Also, most people don’t know these policies. When I worked for CHS, it was a few months in when I finally got my insurance and the benefits book that I happened to see it wouldn’t pay for contraception or abortions (this was circa 2008), no one had told me this during the hiring process.

They’re not up front about it in the first place. **

You hired onto a Catholic organization and thought they would cover contraception and/or abortion and were surprised when they didn’t?

That’s like going to Mecca and, with my loud mouth, expecting to keep my head, and my tightly clenched orifice tightly clenched (particularly on Mondays and Thursdays!).

But its OK for the Church to continually lobby the government for its agendas, such as keeping marriage between a man and a woman, or opposing stem cell research based from aborted embryos? All while being tax exempt? Why should say, Jews subsidize the Catholic church?

Yeah, because those people who happen to be in the Church, be they laity or clergy, are also US citizens (well, mostly), and they have a right to make sure the government represents them fairly. It’s called a Constitutional Republic and it looks out for the rights of the minority as much as the majority. The opposite, and what most people erroneously think we have is a Democracy. That’s just false. Marriage was never a civil issue until basically this century and in the West. Do you really need me to explain the issue of aborted embryos being used to harvest stem cells? I’ll give you a little more credit than that and assume it a mental slip. Tax exempt? You betcha. Of the ~75% or so of Americans claiming Christianity, the Catholic Church claims 25% in the USA. Of these 25% of Americans, only about 25% go to Mass each week, and that leaves only 6.25% of faithful Catholics in the US’ entire population. Of those, who knows what percentage actually stays faithful to the social teaching of the Church regarding homosexual issues, abortion, etc.

These practices you mentioned are a grave injustice to human dignity and justice.

The US taxpayer doesn’t subsidize the Catholic Church, be they Jew, Christian, or ignorant heathen (and yes they still exist despite all ecumenical protestations to the contrary!).
**
Ya can’t tamper with a secular government then shriek “religious freedom” when the secular government tampers with you. **

Pasture pucks. The 1st Amendment: Read it, love it, live it, and defend it.

Either learn the system of government we have, or keep quiet and quit espousing the propaganda of the left.

 

[KathleenGee]

I read the majority of Catholics voted for Obama…and he is garnering the Catholic Hispanic vote with his desire for amnesty. He is working to give voting rights to Guatemalens now coming in…this is Chicago type politics…and Obama has a very good chance of winning again…The transfer of wealth is going to China…

And the USA totally ignores the 54 million souls who died in China for the sake of communism…and it was the USA populations group that set up China to have one child policy…Steve Mosher became a convert when he actually witnessed Chinese mothers begging for mercy to keep the lives of their babies before the communists forced abortion on them…and the buckets of water to dispose of girl babies…

There are places such as India as well that are having a void of females…they are gone…

 

[Mickey]

I read the majority of Catholics voted for Obama…

Disgusting.

this is Chicago type politics…

Yes.

and Obama has a very good chance of winning again…

And those who vote for him…deserve him…but the babies do not.

Steve Mosher became a convert when he actually witnessed Chinese mothers begging for mercy to keep the lives of their babies before the communists forced abortion on them…and the buckets of water to dispose of girl babies…
There are places such as India as well that are having a void of females…they are gone…

Sickening.

 

[Nicea325]

Most Democratic Catholics should have known what they’ve gotten themselves into when they decided to vote for Barack Obama.

It was obvious what his feelings on abortion and contraception were. And now you get what you voted for.

Precisely why I have no interest in Democrats and Republicans. Same garbage,different piles.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Irrelevant under federal law.

There is no federal law that states health care providers must provide x, y, or z coverage. At least, not until this has just been implemented. The only federal law relevant to this situation is this one; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.”

But its OK for the Church to continually lobby the government for its agendas, such as keeping marriage between a man and a woman, or opposing stem cell research based from aborted embryos? All while being tax exempt? Why should say, Jews subsidize the Catholic church?

Ya can’t tamper with a secular government then shriek “religious freedom” when the secular government tampers with you.

“The Church,” doesn’t lobby anyone for any particular agenda. Individual members of churches lobby their representatives for whatever agenda they see fit. As is their right as free citizens to do. Given the current climate, that may be changing.

 

[SeanF1989]

What ever happened to liberal/democrat parties? At one point they were about helping poor families and since the late 1960’s all they care about is abortion, gay marriage, contraception in schools for children as young as 11, legalising drugs, prostitution and other immoral behaviour.

 

[JonNC]

=Geist;8876272]Irrelevant under federal law.

Indeed! And federal law is under the Constitution. Where in the enumerated powers is ANY mention of healthcare in the first place.

But its OK for the Church to continually lobby the government for its agendas, such as keeping marriage between a man and a woman,

Since marriage is a religious rite (sacrament), why should the government be saying anything about marriage at all. It seems like selective “separation” of church and state when the state wants to stick their nose in where it doesn’t belong.

or opposing stem cell research based from aborted embryos?

So, Christians give up their rights to redress grievances? It right is the very basis of a constitutional representative republic.

All while being tax exempt? Why should say, Jews subsidize the Catholic church?

This assumes 2 things: that Jewish places of worship do not have tax exempt status,
and that simply not collecting a non-tax amounts to someone else subsidizing. Neither is true.

Ya can’t tamper with a secular government then shriek “religious freedom” when the secular government tampers with you.

Oh yes you can!! That’s why the first amendment puts two limits on government - it can’t establish a state church, and it can’t restrict free exercise. Requiring a Catholic or any other religious organization to finance something that violates their religious belief is clearly a restriction of free exercise.

Jon

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Precisely why I have no interest in Democrats and Republicans. Same garbage,different piles.

Catholics have voted almost every single election en masse for the Democratic Party in the past several elections. They keep supporting candidates who are Democrats, no matter what their political stance is.

I’ve asked Catholics here in Connecticut why they’ve bothered to vote for Obama at all, when voting for a pro-abortion candidate is grounds for automatic self-excommunication. I never get a satisfactory answer. But then again, most of these Catholics are so in name only, either because of family tradition, or, as in the case of a professor of mine, because of an adherence to Liberation Theology.

Then again I wonder why Catholics voted en masse for a politician like John F. Kennedy. There was nothing really Catholic about him, nor is there anything really Catholic about the Kennedy dynasty at large. Yet the Kennedy candidates have and continue to garner overwhelmingly the Catholic vote. Why? Because it so happens that they were baptized in the Catholic Church.

Catholics have no one to blame but themselves, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Geist]

Indeed! And federal law is under the Constitution. Where in the enumerated powers is ANY mention of healthcare in the first place.

Er, the Social Security Amendments of 1965. Hill–Burton Act. The Affordable Care Act. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. All Federal laws impacting healthcare.

I left out a few.

Also, the enumerated powers were basically nullified by the elastic clause.

Since marriage is a religious rite (sacrament), why should the government be saying anything about marriage at all. It seems like selective “separation” of church and state when the state wants to stick their nose in where it doesn’t belong.

Marriage is solely a religious rite? I recall the priest saying “by the power invested in me by the state of New York” when I married my wife. We have a marriage license from the state, and a certificate from the Church.

What if we had been married by a justice of the peace? What If I wanted to marry a man in a civil ceremony? What business it of the church? The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, so what basis is there for a religious body in tampering with same-sex civil unions? remember, various faiths worked hard to kill proposition 8 was it California?

Oh yes you can!! That’s why the first amendment puts two limits on government - it can’t establish a state church, and it can’t restrict free exercise. Requiring a Catholic or any other religious organization to finance something that violates their religious belief is clearly a restriction of free exercise.

By that logic, since churches do not pay into state coffers they should not be allowed to use public roads, courts, airspace, utilities, hospitals, etc.

Again, it cuts both ways.

 

[vsedriver]

Ya can’t tamper with a secular government then shriek “religious freedom” when the secular government tampers with you.

You can when there’s a clause in the US Constitution forbidding Government from preventing the free exercise of religion. The clause doesn’t go both ways.

 

[vsedriver]

It doesn’t? So what is the Catholic Voting Guide printed and distributed for? Why did my parish try and sign people up to receive pre-filled out e-mails they can sign and forward to their legislators?

For fun?

the Church has an obligation to educate their members on acceptable moral behavior. Since the government insists on legislating areas that involve moral behavior the church has a right to let her members know where their responsibility lies.

What if we had been married by a justice of the peace? What If I wanted to marry a man in a civil ceremony? What business it of the church?

Marriage is a moral issue. The church is obligated to weigh in on moral issues.

The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, so what basis is there for a religious body in tampering with same-sex civil unions? remember, various faiths worked hard to kill proposition 8 was it California?

gays have equal protection under the law concerning marriage. They have the same right to marry as straights. There is no check box for sexual orientation on a marriage license. Now if it were illegal for gays to get married that would be an issue. But any gay person has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like any straight person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Yes, various faiths worked hard to kill proposition 8 because it was a moral issue.

By that logic, since churches do not pay into state coffers they should not be allowed to use public roads, courts, airspace, utilities, hospitals, etc.

Churches like all other charities do not pay taxes on money they collect. They do pay income taxes, and other taxes. Charities provide a public service and for this reason are given a tax break.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

It doesn’t? So what is the Catholic Voting Guide printed and distributed for? Why did my parish try and sign people up to receive pre-filled out e-mails they can sign and forward to their legislators?

For fun?

The Catholic Voting Guide lists the Church’s position on various moral and social issues, as well as their priority within the view of the Church. It does not call for the endorsement of any particular political candidate.

How is this a violation of the separation of church and state and their tax exempt status?

 

[vsedriver]

Again, the “religious freedom” argument really doesn’t apply here. I can’t see the Church winning a reversal for this in court given it violates the rights of its employees to have this service covered as they would under any other plan.

the recent supreme court case wouldn’t agree with you. No one has a right to elective medicine and birth control is an elective medical choice like a face lift. Besides, it is not fair to men. If women can get their birth control paid for so should men. they should get their condoms covered.

This is most definitely a religious freedom question. Catholic employers need to offer health care insurance in order to attract quality employees. But forcing the Church to pay for something the Church teaches is immoral is government interference in religious practices. Catholic hospitals offer more free care to the poor than for profit hospitals. If Catholic hospitals are forced to close or be sold off to for profit hospitals the poor will suffer the most.

 

[jonbhorton]

**It doesn’t? So what is the Catholic Voting Guide printed and distributed for? Why did my parish try and sign people up to receive pre-filled out e-mails they can sign and forward to their legislators?

For fun? **

Others have answered this already, but I’ll offer my spin as if anyone cares.

Well, as stated prior, it’s not an endorsement of any candidate per the voting guide.

As for the pre-filled emails/postcards, most people are ignorant of how to address these issues. The Church, in her infinite wisdom, wants to provide a method for people to address their civil authorities. The issues addressed are always moral in nature, i.e. gay “marriage”, abortion, etc. Never have I seen in either a Catholic church or when I was in the Protestant milieu, a church promoting addressing grievance on a piece of legislation solely civil in nature.

**Er, the Social Security Amendments of 1965. Hill–Burton Act. The Affordable Care Act. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. All Federal laws impacting healthcare.

I left out a few.
**

You named bills, but not how they impact current legislation, nor did you explain the content and legal ramifications of the bills named in the context of the time they were passed into law. Information onslaught doesn’t prove you right if it doesn’t offer insight.

**Also, the enumerated powers were basically nullified by the elastic clause. **

After the information overload trick, you then sought to play on ignorance and say that the enumerated powers were basically nullified by the elastic clause, properly known as the “Necessary and Proper Clause”. For those unaware, the clause is not an add on. It’s in the same document and was drafted by the same men, and signed by the same men, who wrote the preceding enumerated powers out in detail. So, basically, you’re attempting to put forth that the Constitution nullifies itself from the get go. Nice try but that dog don’t hunt, Clementine. In fact, the defenders of the clause, the Federalists, argued it only allowed Congress to enact laws relating to the powers already granted, though not, at that time specified, due to an unknown future. If you read it, you can see just that:

Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitition in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof”.

 

[jonbhorton]

What if we had been married by a justice of the peace? What If I wanted to marry a man in a civil ceremony? What business it of the church? The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, so what basis is there for a religious body in tampering with same-sex civil unions? remember, various faiths worked hard to kill proposition 8 was it California?

Justice of peace, invalid form (generally) for a Catholic and potentially viable for non-Catholic marriage if ever brought before a diocesan tribunal. Man? Not marriage according to the Church. The 14th amendment guarantees protection under the law, meaning that which is established. Further, said law can be challenged up to the US Supreme Court before ever being given the official Constitutional green light- meaning easy pickings for a lawsuit to challenge it. In other words, not-laws are not a guarantor of anything under the 14th amendment. Nice try at obfuscation though.

Per Prop 8, see my last. Also, from here on out get it through your head that we, as practitioners of the Catholic Faith, are still US citizens and can seek grievance or redress through our representative constitutional republic system to gripe about anything we want to. That we happen to also voice our concern as a united body, or through a united body inform our politically ignorant brethren, is, well, guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. Duh.

**By that logic, since churches do not pay into state coffers they should not be allowed to use public roads, courts, airspace, utilities, hospitals, etc.

Again, it cuts both ways.**

Churches pay for gas, gas sales go to road construction and maintenance, along with other taxes and fees associated with operating automobiles- and churches operate them a ton. Courts- it takes two to tango. I agree, let’s keep the clergy out of the courts though. Also, since we’re gonna go with the tax paying argument, let’s keep illegal immigrants and terrorists out of our courts as well. Ship em back where they came from, and for the terrorists, give the pilots parachutes and a homing beacon.

Airspace… really? We pay taxes on air? Quick! I’m gobbling your tax money with every breath. The insanity, it’s too much.

Utilities- Churches pay for utilities. Crazy, I know. But yeah, they do. That’s why the secretaries and maintenance guys complain and leave notes made on MS Paint about turning off lights and coffee makers in the classrooms. Oh yeah, that paper and ink they made the notes on? They drove to the store utilizing a vehicle which has had its fees paid and is running on taxed gasoline, paid for the paper and ink, including sales tax, and probably stopped for lunch on the way, again pumping money into the economy, including sales tax.

Hospitals- most hospitals in the US were either started, are run, and/or are funded by churches. In fact, that’s one of the issues this thread is about. Way to go, recon. Eagle eyes over there. Turn your telescope around, it brings the images closer. Might be easier to read that way.

I swear, it’s like I live in a country where we’ve had pinko-commie lobbyists screwing up the population’s mechanisms of logic for the past 100 years. Oh, wait, I do live in that country.

 

[Geist]

Too much to respond to, but I stand by my assertion separation of church and state works both ways, and I notice the church side seems to invade the state side more than the reverse. I like living in a secular nation and will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

 

[mtbender]

The establishment clause:

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

I am not seeing anything that would indicate that the Faithfull cannot appeal to the government, seems like all the restriction is on the government…

I can’t see the Church winning a reversal for this in court given it violates the rights of its employees to have this service covered as they would under any other plan.

Since when should the right of the employee trump the ** constitutional right ** of the employer?

 

[nordskoven]

Catholics voted Democrats in. Catholics can vote Democrats out. Don’t pretend that this just somehow happened. The Democratic Party has a pro-abortion plank. That includes explicit support for so-called Partial Birth Abortion. Bullying the American Medical Association into reversing its decision that the mother-endangering Partial Birth Abortion procedure was not a therapeutic abortion technique probably earned Kagan a Supreme Court seat. This is more of the same thing for which Catholics voted. Catholic contraception praxis and voting patterns are perfectly consonant. This didn’t just happen out of the blue. Nominal Catholics made it happen.

 

[Adonia]

The Obama administration, under the rubric of its health care overhaul, is forcing religious hospitals, schools, and ministries to cover and/or dispense birth control as part of its health care plans and services. Including those birth control pills that are considered abortifacients. Let us pray the Supreme Court overturns this egregious sin and violation of religious freedom.

washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-admin-to-grant-1-year-extension-for-church-affiliated-employers-to-cover-birth-control/2012/01/20/gIQAu9XlDQ_story.html

Yep, we must surely stick together on this one. Liberty and freedom of conscience went out the window on this one. The next step will be persecution for those that fail to comply.

 

[Adonia]

Too much to respond to, but I stand by my assertion separation of church and state works both ways, and I notice the church side seems to invade the state side more than the reverse. I like living in a secular nation and will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

But can’t you see what’s really happening, the state working it’s way to end the public expression of faith? The "church and state " argument was solely against the establishment of a national religion. As a free people, we ought to be able to dislpay our faith in the public sphere without question. We religious folks have rights too.