Archbishop Chaput sees election days as ‘tough times’ for Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter 777rak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicGuy22 said:
Amen not all democrats believe in abortion.
Click to expand...
I no longer believe that the real fundamental issue is abortion albeit its prime importance.

The main question is – Does an American business owner have the freedom to practice her or his religion?
 
Catholic1954 said:
Maybe not, but their PARTY does.
Click to expand...
The National Conventions develop platforms, true, but they aren’t legally binding upon any candidate. Ron Paul, for example, once ran as a Libertarian Party candidate whose platform is pro-choice but we know that there is no one more pro-life than Ron Paul and always has been.
 
CatholicGuy22 said:
Amen not all democrats believe in abortion.
Click to expand...
And I have many times voted for pro life Democrats, but as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer of them. The Democratic Party has truly been hijacked (so to speak) by far left radicals in recent years. The Democrats of today, are nothing like the Democrats of yesteryear. Take it from one that is old enough to verify that! :o
 
grannymh said:
I no longer believe that the real fundamental issue is abortion albeit its prime importance.

The main question is – Does an American business owner have the freedom to practice her or his religion?
Click to expand...
This will in fact be the $64,000,000 question and we will know soon enough. Our only salvation may be the Courts. There are multiple law suits by Catholics and other denominations that want their first freedom saved. Time will tell.

Jesus Have Mercy On Us!!!
 
ProVobis said:
The National Conventions develop platforms, true, but they aren’t legally binding upon any candidate. Ron Paul, for example, once ran as a Libertarian Party candidate whose platform is pro-choice but we know that there is no one more pro-life than Ron Paul and always has been.
Click to expand...
I believe you would struggle to name 10 democrat politcians who were pro life
 
grannymh said:
The main question is – Does an American business owner have the freedom to practice her or his religion?
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that American business owners are free to practice the religion of his or her choice. No one is preventing them from attending religious services or celebrating holy days etc.

Perhaps the real question is whether American business owners have a right to impose their religious beliefs on employees. Its a tricky thing, since it is done in ways which few find objectionable e.g. being closed on Sundays or getting a traditional holiday off.

But in the US, most health care is financed via health insurance. Do employers have a right to limit the health coverage offered to employees based upon the employers religious conviction, which the employees may not share? The immediate concern has to do with the contraception mandate. But wouldn’t an employer also be able to eliminate coverage for blood transfusions ( if the employer is a Jehovahs Witness) ?
 
_Abyssinia said:
I believe you would struggle to name 10 democrat politcians who were pro life
Click to expand...
There were 64 bluedog Democrats in the House before the 2010 elections and a few more were voted out last Tuesday. Reason I hear is that the pro-life orgs have given up on them. But pretty soon they may give up on the Republicans too. They lost the elections even with Goldman Sachs and Bank of America contributing to their campaigns.
 
ProVobis said:
There were 64 bluedog Democrats in the House before the 2010 elections and a few more were voted out last Tuesday. Reason I hear is that the pro-life orgs have given up on them. But pretty soon they may give up on the Republicans too.
Click to expand...
Many were not pro life. Pro life organisations would not give up on a pro life candidate
 
Dale_M said:
I don’t doubt that American business owners are free to practice the religion of his or her choice. No one is preventing them from attending religious services or celebrating holy days etc.

Perhaps the real question is whether American business owners have a right to impose their religious beliefs on employees. Its a tricky thing, since it is done in ways which few find objectionable e.g. being closed on Sundays or getting a traditional holiday off.

But in the US, most health care is financed via health insurance. Do employers have a right to limit the health coverage offered to employees based upon the employers religious conviction, which the employees may not share? The immediate concern has to do with the contraception mandate. But wouldn’t an employer also be able to eliminate coverage for blood transfusions ( if the employer is a Jehovahs Witness) ?
Click to expand...
The solution is to take health care out of the hands of the employers and put everyone on a system like the one Congress has. The individual chooses from a number of private insurance companies and the premiums are taken as a payroll deduction just like taxes or Social Security. It’s NOT government insurance because it is still provided by private companies, and the employee makes the choice of what insurance is best for them and their family. The free market would determine if those private companies offered plans that did not cover birth control or abortion for those that did not want their payments funding those things. The costs would also likely be lower because of the much larger and varied pool of insured.
 
Dale_M said:
I don’t doubt that American business owners are free to practice the religion of his or her choice. No one is preventing them from attending religious services or celebrating holy days etc.

Perhaps the real question is whether American business owners have a right to impose their religious beliefs on employees. Its a tricky thing, since it is done in ways which few find objectionable e.g. being closed on Sundays or getting a traditional holiday off.

But in the US, most health care is financed via health insurance. Do employers have a right to limit the health coverage offered to employees based upon the employers religious conviction, which the employees may not share? The immediate concern has to do with the contraception mandate. But wouldn’t an employer also be able to eliminate coverage for blood transfusions ( if the employer is a Jehovahs Witness) ?
Click to expand...
And who runs the business?
 
Dale_M said:
I don’t doubt that American business owners are free to practice the religion of his or her choice. No one is preventing them from attending religious services or celebrating holy days etc.

Perhaps the real question is whether American business owners have a right to impose their religious beliefs on employees. Its a tricky thing, since it is done in ways which few find objectionable e.g. being closed on Sundays or getting a traditional holiday off.

But in the US, most health care is financed via health insurance. Do employers have a right to limit the health coverage offered to employees based upon the employers religious conviction, which the employees may not share? The immediate concern has to do with the contraception mandate. But wouldn’t an employer also be able to eliminate coverage for blood transfusions ( if the employer is a Jehovahs Witness) ?
Click to expand...
An employer ought to be able to offer, or not offer, whatever benefits he chooses. The government should not dictate to an employer–or an employee–the terms of employment.
 
JimG said:
An employer ought to be able to offer, or not offer, whatever benefits he chooses. The government should not dictate to an employer–or an employee–the terms of employment.
Click to expand...
Taking health care out of the hands of the employer totally ends that debate. Nobody has to provide anything.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Taking health care out of the hands of the employer totally ends that debate. Nobody has to provide anything.
Click to expand...
What you proposed in post #12 sounds like it has merit. Certainly most employers in the US find the expectation to provide heath insurance to be a burden, especially with rising health care costs.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t part of the health care reform which was passed, so it doesn’t address the current concern about contraception coverage.
 
Dale_M said:
Perhaps the real question is whether American business owners have a right to impose their religious beliefs on employees. Its a tricky thing, since it is done in ways which few find objectionable e.g. being closed on Sundays or getting a traditional holiday off.

But in the US, most health care is financed via health insurance. Do employers have a right to limit the health coverage offered to employees based upon the employers religious conviction, which the employees may not share? The immediate concern has to do with the contraception mandate. But wouldn’t an employer also be able to eliminate coverage for blood transfusions ( if the employer is a Jehovahs Witness) ?
Click to expand...
No employer is forcing his religious beliefs on employees by failing to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients, any more than he is doing so by having a $2,000 deductible instead of a $1,000 deductible.

The only force involved here is the government forcing employers to provide what they believe is immoral benefits, and in lieu thereof to pay a fine. This is, in effect, a “tax on religion”. If you don’t adhere to the “state religion”, you get punished.
 
Seeker1961 said:
The solution is to take health care out of the hands of the employers and put everyone on a system like the one Congress has. The individual chooses from a number of private insurance companies and the premiums are taken as a payroll deduction just like taxes or Social Security. It’s NOT government insurance because it is still provided by private companies, and the employee makes the choice of what insurance is best for them and their family. The free market would determine if those private companies offered plans that did not cover birth control or abortion for those that did not want their payments funding those things. The costs would also likely be lower because of the much larger and varied pool of insured.
Click to expand...
You’re essentially describing the federal employees health insurance system. It is a very decent system with competitive rates, excellent coverage and reasonable premiums. I would support such a system on a universal basis.
 
JimG said:
An employer ought to be able to offer, or not offer, whatever benefits he chooses. The government should not dictate to an employer–or an employee–the terms of employment.
Click to expand...
One also should be able to shop for group insurance (read, without the underwriting process) coverage other than what an employer offers. This is for the most part non-existent in today’s environmment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top