Non Catholics stand with your Catholic Brothers

[Linda_Marie]

Here is a news story:
Poll: Anger Over Obama’s Birth-Control Policy Spans All Religious Groups

The CHQ poll asked: “A new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy requires religious organizations to provide coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraceptives in their health plans, and religious hospitals to provide those services, even when some or all of those practices violate their conscience. Is this a proper extension of government power over religious institutions?"

Following is a percentage breakdown on the responses, recorded by religious belief.

Protestant disapproval — 41 percent
Protestant approval — 1 percent
Catholic disapproval — 27 percent
Catholic approval — 1 percent
Non-religious disapproval — 14 percent
Non-religious approval — 1 percent
Different religious affiliation disapproval — 12 percent
Different religious affiliation approval — 1 percent
Jewish disapproval — 1 percent
And Jewish approval — 1 percent.

Looks like even the non-religious believe that this is an improper extension of government power over religious institutions. I think that should be changed to say improper extension of government power over an individual’s practice of their religion, not just that of official religious institutions. What about doctors or pharmacists who object? They aren’t churches but their right to practice their religion freely is being removed as well.

Free enterprise should determine if they can stay in business without providing contraceptive/abortifacient medicines, services or insurance coverage. People are always free to go someplace else to buy their pills or buy coverage for abortions if their employer supplied insurance doesn’t cover it or just refuse to work there if it isn’t provided.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here is a news story:
Poll: Anger Over Obama’s Birth-Control Policy Spans All Religious Groups

Looks like even the non-religious believe that this is an improper extension of government power over religious institutions. I think that should be changed to say improper extension of government power over an individual’s practice of their religion, not just that of official religious institutions. What about doctors or pharmacists who object? They aren’t churches but their right to practice their religion freely is being removed as well.

Free enterprise should determine if they can stay in business without providing contraceptive/abortifacient medicines, services or insurance coverage. People are always free to go someplace else to buy their pills or buy coverage for abortions if their employer supplied insurance doesn’t cover it or just refuse to work there if it isn’t provided.

Those numbers are not encouraging if they’re to be credited (which is uncertain). Obama might have been right in believing he could get away with this.

 

[wondrousgnat]

In my lifetime I have seen the legalization of abortion. And no fault divorce. Support for euthenasia. Gay marriage and gay adoption. Attacks against Christianity by the entertainment and news medeias. Now military chaplains are under control. And increasing attempts to weaken, silence and control not only the Catholic church but all Christianity. I noticed years ago that conservative Christian values is a minor issue even among conservative talk show hosts. rarely covering it and in some cases opposing it.

The Catholic church has been leading the fight against these changes. Most of the nonCatholics have surrendered and I think Catholics may be weakening. There are, of course, nonCatholics who are on the same page as us but they are too few in number, not well organized and working indepently. Many nonCatholics may have problems with our faith and I understand that. But in spite of that we need to work together or else religion will be a nonentity within our childrens’ lifetimes. Maybe within our own.

 

[Teelynn]

In my lifetime I have seen the legalization of abortion. And no fault divorce. Support for euthenasia. Gay marriage and gay adoption. Attacks against Christianity by the entertainment and news medeias. Now military chaplains are under control. And increasing attempts to weaken, silence and control not only the Catholic church but all Christianity. I noticed years ago that conservative Christian values is a minor issue even among conservative talk show hosts. rarely covering it and in some cases opposing it.

The Catholic church has been leading the fight against these changes. Most of the nonCatholics have surrendered and I think Catholics may be weakening. There are, of course, nonCatholics who are on the same page as us but they are too few in number, not well organized and working indepently. Many nonCatholics may have problems with our faith and I understand that. But in spite of that we need to work together or else religion will be a nonentity within our childrens’ lifetimes. Maybe within our own.

This threat is not to be taken lightly. The prospect of worshiping in homes doesn’t seem to be all that impossible of an idea. As I have said before, the buzz word within the administration is: freedom of ***worship. ***Quite different from freedom of religion.
In other words, we can go to our Churches and Synagogues and gather there. We cannot carry out those same beliefs once we are outside of those doors. The implications are quite sobering.

 

[meltzerboy]

Here is a news story:
Poll: Anger Over Obama’s Birth-Control Policy Spans All Religious Groups

Looks like even the non-religious believe that this is an improper extension of government power over religious institutions. I think that should be changed to say improper extension of government power over an individual’s practice of their religion, not just that of official religious institutions. What about doctors or pharmacists who object? They aren’t churches but their right to practice their religion freely is being removed as well.

Free enterprise should determine if they can stay in business without providing contraceptive/abortifacient medicines, services or insurance coverage. People are always free to go someplace else to buy their pills or buy coverage for abortions if their employer supplied insurance doesn’t cover it or just refuse to work there if it isn’t provided.

There should be much more Jewish disapproval of this mandate in all branches of Judaism. It may just take a little time for it to filter into the Jewish community. We, of all people, should realize the disastrous consequences of an attack on anyone’s religious lilberty.

 

[OriginalJS]

There should be much more Jewish disapproval of this mandate in all branches of Judaism. It may just take a little time for it to filter into the Jewish community. We, of all people, should realize the disastrous consequences of an attack on anyone’s religious lilberty.

It seems to me that no one’s religious liberty is being attacked. This looks like a political fight attempting to make the law conform to religious principles. No Catholic, or any other Christian for that matter, is being required to use contraception or have an abortion. Just because an insurance policy might pay for such procedures doesn’t mean an insured would have to violate deeply held principles to accept them. In fact, the Church has been openly preaching against the evils of contraception from day one (at least as far as I know) and everyone recognizes its right to do so. There are myriad positions that religious bodies present that members would likely change, if they could. All of us have to obey various laws we may not agree with, and we see our taxes used for much that we deplore. But, our freedom to worship and freedom to speak on issues, as well as freedom to govern our personal lives in accordance with our beliefs remain intact.

 

[Alix1912]

It seems to me that no one’s religious liberty is being attacked. This looks like a political fight attempting to make the law conform to religious principles. No Catholic, or any other Christian for that matter, is being required to use contraception or have an abortion. Just because an insurance policy might pay for such procedures doesn’t mean an insured would have to violate deeply held principles to accept them. In fact, the Church has been openly preaching against the evils of contraception from day one (at least as far as I know) and everyone recognizes its right to do so. There are myriad positions that religious bodies present that members would likely change, if they could. All of us have to obey various laws we may not agree with, and we see our taxes used for much that we deplore. But, our freedom to worship and freedom to speak on issues, as well as freedom to govern our personal lives in accordance with our beliefs remain intact.

You are right, no one is being forced to have an abortion, or use contraceptives, but the government is forcing the Catholic Church and other religous organizations that do not believe in one or more of these things to pay for them. Let’s say you are an atheist, would you like it if you were being forced to donate to a church, sure you are not being force to go to church, but you are being force to pay for it. Same thing…it’s great they are not forcing people onto contraceptives or to have abortions like they do in China, but they are still forcing a religious body to pay for something they are morally opposed to.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You are right, no one is being forced to have an abortion, or use contraceptives, but the government is forcing the Catholic Church and other religous organizations that do not believe in one or more of these things to pay for them. Let’s say you are an atheist, would you like it if you were being forced to donate to a church, sure you are not being force to go to church, but you are being force to pay for it. Same thing…it’s great they are not forcing people onto contraceptives or to have abortions like they do in China, but they are still forcing a religious body to pay for something they are morally opposed to.

 

[zab]

I think we are going to have to rely on our non- Catholic brothers and sisters to stand with us on. This affects all of us.
video.foxnews.com/v/1441334477001/

 

[Vincent_N]

zab:

I think we are going to have to rely on our non- Catholic brothers and sisters to stand with us on. This affects all of us.
video.foxnews.com/v/1441334477001/

Thanks. It’s a video interview of Archbishop Wuerl with Neil Cavuto. The Archbishop makes a compelling case for religious liberty. It’s not just a Catholic issue. I recommend it.

There’s a funny part in the beginning where a congressman is speaking on the floor and opposing the HHS mandate saying something like “…current Admininstrations to challenge the conscience and reproductive rights of religion.”

 

[JonNC]

=OriginalJS;8936387]It seems to me that no one’s religious liberty is being attacked. This looks like a political fight attempting to make the law conform to religious principles.

Actually, it is a political fight to make the law conform to the constitution - the 1st amendment and the enumerated powers. This regulation clearly restricts the free exercise of religion, by requiring religious groups to change the contractural arrangement the have with employees (that their employees agreed to!!!) in a way that violates their religious beliefs.
I am a public school teacher. I sign a contract accepting, in return for my services, certain benefits including health insurance (not health care, btw, as they are different). It would be, as you say, an attempt to make law concorm to religious principles if I and others dictated how the state operated the state health insurance plan.

No Catholic, or any other Christian for that matter, is being required to use contraception or have an abortion. Just because an insurance policy might pay for such procedures doesn’t mean an insured would have to violate deeply held principles to accept them.

It violates the deeply held beliefs of the Catholic Church to be forced to provide them. It violates the very principles of American governance for the central government, without constitutional mandate, and in violation of the 1st amendment, to force itself on the contractueal arrangement between religious groups and their employees.

In fact, the Church has been openly preaching against the evils of contraception from day one (at least as far as I know) and everyone recognizes its right to do so.

So, now, it is ok to preach against these evils, but you gotta provide them against your will and reliious belief because the government says so. A case study on why the founders included the 1st amendment in the first place.

There are myriad positions that religious bodies present that members would likely change, if they could

Irrelevent. They can leave said bodies if they choose. They can work for an employer that provedes them if the want.

All of us have to obey various laws we may not agree with, and we see our taxes used for much that we deplore.

But not laws that by their very definition violate the supreme law of the land.

But, our freedom to worship and freedom to speak on issues, as well as freedom to govern our personal lives in accordance with our beliefs remain intact.

Really? The “individual mandate” has been repealed?

Jon

 

[Alix1912]

Actually, it is a political fight to make the law conform to the constitution - the 1st amendment and the enumerated powers. This regulation clearly restricts the free exercise of religion, by requiring religious groups to change the contractural arrangement the have with employees (that their employees agreed to!!!) in a way that violates their religious beliefs.
I am a public school teacher. I sign a contract accepting, in return for my services, certain benefits including health insurance (not health care, btw, as they are different). It would be, as you say, an attempt to make law concorm to religious principles if I and others dictated how the state operated the state health insurance plan.

It violates the deeply held beliefs of the Catholic Church to be forced to provide them. It violates the very principles of American governance for the central government, without constitutional mandate, and in violation of the 1st amendment, to force itself on the contractueal arrangement between religious groups and their employees.

So, now, it is ok to preach against these evils, but you gotta provide them against your will and reliious belief because the government says so. A case study on why the founders included the 1st amendment in the first place.

Irrelevent. They can leave said bodies if they choose. They can work for an employer that provedes them if the want.

But not laws that by their very definition violate the supreme law of the land.

Really? The “individual mandate” has been repealed?

Jon

As always Jon… you are spot on.

 

[Zooey]

I am not Catholic. I am Lutheran MS. I do not have any moral issue with barrier birth control, though I do major issues with anything that harms an already conceived child. Despite the fact that I do not completely share the Catholic Church’s beliefs, I do believe that they have a right to those beliefs, and that right is and should be protected by the 1st Ammendment.

That being said the recent HHS ruling is WRONG, on every level, and it is a direct and clear violation to the US constitution.

I am so glad that the Catholic Clergy and leadership of America are not taking this assault to their Religion lightly. Thank you for standing up, and know that many of your non Catholic brothers and sisters are standing with you. I have already spoken and written to my elected officals and I will continue to do so until this mandate is removed.

I call on everyone who regularly visits this page and is not Catholic to stand with their Catholic brothers and sisters and fight this assault on our freedom.

Well said!!

However, we do not need to replace the birth control issue with “chocolate bars”. We can replace it with the "ministerial exception"in the case of a Lutheran school. This administration is in full attack mode against religious organizations, including the LCMS.
nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?pagewanted=all

If we allow our doctrinal differences to get in the way of standing together against anti-religious tyranny, we are in trouble. As was said by Thomas Paine, “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”

If we stand shoulder to shoulder now, and win these battles, perhaps we can discuss our doctrinal differences later. If we don’t, the chances are our freedom of speech will fall alng side our freedom of religion.

Right now, in this country, we really need each other.

Jon

Amen to that!! This is an attack on ALL people of faith.Let’s all join together to make our voices heard.

 

[Teelynn]

Amen to that!! This is an attack on ALL people of faith.Let’s all join together to make our voices heard.

I am wondering…if there is a united effort to confront this…I guess what I am saying, have the different faiths banded together with the Bishops in an effort to fight this? I think it would help if they all came together in unison to take on the federal government. Just a thought. (remember…one of Obama’s strategies is…divide and conquer) Since his announcement on Friday, (which was nothing more than a bate and switch) is everyone still on board? This, I believe is going to be a knock down drag out, taking a cue from the health care bill that no one listened to what the people wanted. They just moved full steam ahead ignoring cries of 'wait a minute…hold on"…and they saw what happened in Nov. 2010. It’s still “we the people” if we are united.

 

[Alix1912]

I am wondering…if there is a united effort to confront this…I guess what I am saying, have the different faiths banded together with the Bishops in an effort to fight this? I think it would help if they all came together in unison to take on the federal government. Just a thought. (remember…one of Obama’s strategies is…divide and conquer) Since his announcement on Friday, (which was nothing more than a bate and switch) is everyone still on board? This, I believe is going to be a knock down drag out, taking a cue from the health care bill that no one listened to what the people wanted. They just moved full steam ahead ignoring cries of 'wait a minute…hold on"…and they saw what happened in Nov. 2010. It’s still “we the people” if we are united.

I’m the OP and still on Board. The newest thing is even WORSE.

He is now ordering private insurance companies to provide something for free. What next telling Groceries stores that they have to provide certain types of food for free. This is an even bigger overstep than the previous one.

Also there is no such thing as free, it gets paid for somewhere. Churches who oppose the mandate will still pay for it, but rather than it being a line item in their coverage the cost will be rolled into some other hidden area of coverage.

Net Effect: Precendent set for forcing companies to “give” away certain products and services, AND still forcing religious institutions to pay for things they don’t support, just hidden in a better manner.

 

[PTL]

I am wondering…if there is a united effort to confront this…I guess what I am saying, have the different faiths banded together with the Bishops in an effort to fight this? I think it would help if they all came together in unison to take on the federal government. Just a thought. (remember…one of Obama’s strategies is…divide and conquer) Since his announcement on Friday, (which was nothing more than a bate and switch) is everyone still on board? This, I believe is going to be a knock down drag out, taking a cue from the health care bill that no one listened to what the people wanted. They just moved full steam ahead ignoring cries of 'wait a minute…hold on"…and they saw what happened in Nov. 2010. It’s still “we the people” if we are united.

Teelynn, you made an excellent point. That is the good strength of internet. I hope some grassroots leaders out there can catch what you suggested, and work on this.

How true it is that the administration’s strategy is to divide and we ought to unite to fight against it. If all the Catholics, Protestants, Jewish faith, and Muslims, and non-believers form an organization, all unite together and fight, it will be much more powerful and effective.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m the OP and still on Board. The newest thing is even WORSE.

He is now ordering private insurance companies to provide something for free. What next telling Groceries stores that they have to provide certain types of food for free. This is an even bigger overstep than the previous one.

Also there is no such thing as free, it gets paid for somewhere. Churches who oppose the mandate will still pay for it, but rather than it being a line item in their coverage the cost will be rolled into some other hidden area of coverage.

Net Effect: Precendent set for forcing companies to “give” away certain products and services, AND still forcing religious institutions to pay for things they don’t support, just hidden in a better manner.

Well said. What is to prevent the HHS or the president to make other mandates? This is what is so troubling about this act. “We have to pass it to see what’s in it.” This is only the beginning. HHS and the president apparently can make any decrees they like with no review from the Congress.

 

[Alix1912]

I don’t understand this issue.
No one is forcing Catholics to use birth control, right?
And now, with Obama’s amendment, if a Catholic does want to use birth control (and many do), they can go to their insurance company and get it directly…their religious institution that they work for does not have to pay for it? (Right?)

This way, the ones who do not want to use it and want to follow their religion don’t use it and the companies that they work for don’t have to pay for it…and the ones who do want to use it are given equal coverage as everyone else and are not discriminated against…and their religious-based employer does not have to pay for it, just the insurance company.

Is this not a good compromise?
Or is there still a problem now with who is paying for the birth control that the Catholics will use??

So you are OK with the Government mandating to a company that they must provide a product for free. That is not OK. Also NOTHING is ever free. The Insurance companies will still charge the religoius institutions it will justt be included in overhead rather than as a line item. This is not a comprimise it’s an even bigger power grab.

This is not about equal coverage or equality of anything, it’s about the government getting to dictate to private companies how and at what price they can offer their product, or ttelling religious institutions which parts of their faith they can and cannot adhere too. Do not for one minute believe this is only about birth control. Also NOWHERE in the constitution does it list free Birth Control as a right.

 

[PTL]

I don’t understand this issue.
No one is forcing Catholics to use birth control, right?
And now, with Obama’s amendment, if a Catholic does want to use birth control (and many do), they can go to their insurance company and get it directly…their religious institution that they work for does not have to pay for it? (Right?)

This way, the ones who do not want to use it and want to follow their religion don’t use it and the companies that they work for don’t have to pay for it…and the ones who do want to use it are given equal coverage as everyone else and are not discriminated against…and their religious-based employer does not have to pay for it, just the insurance company.

Is this not a good compromise?
Or is there still a problem now with who is paying for the birth control that the Catholics will use??

There are several things you left out.

1. Many Insurance companies are owned by Catholics. In this case, the Catholic insurance companies are forced against their Church teaching and conscience.
2. Many Catholic organizations are self-insured. In this case, they are forced against their Church teaching and conscience.
3. Even it is none of the above two cases, the insurance companies will in turn raise up the premium on the employers, therefore, it is still the Catholic employers forced paying it.
4. This is not about who is paying what, it is about government’ s intrusion into individual’s free choice and government’s intrusion into religion freedom.
5. If this mandate is allowed, if Obama is over the Constitution, many other mandates will follow, such as same sex marriage, end of life performance, and human cloning.

 

[Alix1912]

So…how should the president address the fact that there are, indeed, many Catholics and people of other religion that are against BC, who do indeed want to use birth control and do use it, who happen to work for a religious institution?

I guess those women and men should simply pay the full price for it? I guess that is the best way. If you work for a religious institution, your BC will not be covered as it is elsewhere, and that’s that.
Also…what if someone is working for a religious institution, but they are not religious? I guess, again, it is their choice to work there and they can choose not to, if the insurance overage is not what they want.

This is a tough situation and I can see the Prez’s quandary and he’s trying to please all sides.

If you worked for a Jewish hospital would you expect, no demand, that the president mandate that they provide Bacon Cheeseburgers in the cafeteria simply because you and other non jewish employees might want one for lunch. No, you would expect that in a Jewish run hospital the food provided would be kosher. If you wanted non kosher things you would have to go out to lunch and pay for the gas and much yourself.

Same thing here: You are working for a institution that is funded by the Catholic Church, you should not expect them to give you free birth control. It is against church teaching. If you want your employer to provide free borth control in their healthcare plans than work somewhere else.

Also AGAIN nothing is free. So your secular employer is actually paying for that “free” BC. Thus their contribution, and your to your healthcare goes up with every FREE service that the “Prez” adds to your coverage. This in turn drives up the cost of employeeing people, thus causing companies to hire less people and pay the people they hire less. Maybe if we quit expecting everything to be free, and realized that if we pay copays, do not run to the doctor for every little thing, then we would have more, better paying jobs because employers would have to cash availible to hire and pay people rather than tied up in paying for “free” stuff.