| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:55 am Post subject: Dbag Barry loses Catholic vote? |
 |
|
A Battle the President Can't Win | Quote: | There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.
The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.
[...]
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win. |
_________________
Safety is my gaol.
US Constitution | Amendments |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama has been, without a doubt, the most anti-Catholic president this country has ever had.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I say, God damn America!
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He a Mack Daddy!
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So he isn't likely to get much of the Catholic or Jewish vote. Any other major groups he's offended?
_________________
Safety is my gaol.
US Constitution | Amendments |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | So he isn't likely to get much of the Catholic or Jewish vote. Any other major groups he's offended? |
beta males? oh sorry I thought you wrote "hasn't offended"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was Catholic long enough to figure out that being Catholic had nothing to do with your stance on contraception. The super conservatives that happen to be Catholics will be against this. Everyone else won't care and there are plenty of Catholic liberals that will side with Obama on this issue. He certainly isn't going to "lose the Catholic vote" over this.
Also does anyone know why are Catholics singled out here? There are baptists and other denominations that have hospitals as well. Are they not upset?
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | I was Catholic long enough to figure out that being Catholic had nothing to do with your stance on contraception. The super conservatives that happen to be Catholics will be against this. Everyone else won't care and there are plenty of Catholic liberals that will side with Obama on this issue. He certainly isn't going to "lose the Catholic vote" over this. |
You are the only person making that claim. The bishops are against him, the archbishops are against him, my catholic neighbors (who voted for him and are quite liberal) are now against him, and every catholic I've seen interviewed about this subject is now against him.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough, my sampling was pretty small (though larger than your "sort-of liberal neighbors" survey).
| The Earth wrote: | | The bishops are against him, the archbishops are against him |
Well obviously, I was talking about parishioners.
| sts wrote: | | Also does anyone know why are Catholics singled out here? There are baptists and other denominations that have hospitals as well. Are they not upset? |
Ok, there's others:
http://www.becketfund.org/protestants-and-jews-declare-to-white-house-we-stand-with-catholics/
So, to be clear, the law in question says that all health insurance providers and all health-care providers must cover/provide contraception. And religious groups are mad that religious non-profit health organizations are not excluded from this requirement? Is that the gist of it? Sounds good to me but I tend to like anything that pisses off religious folks.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | So, to be clear, the law in question says that all health insurance providers and all health-care providers must cover/provide contraception. And religious groups are mad that religious non-profit health organizations are not excluded from this requirement? Is that the gist of it? Sounds good to me but I tend to like anything that pisses off religious folks. |
It's a first amendment violation. Why like that? Here's the thing, the Catholic hospitals could simply deny all non-Catholic patients and get the exemption... so the government is telling the Catholics to either violate their own religious rules or stop providing health care to others.
There's your hope & change. Big government bully wiping his ass with the constitution.
What's next? Demanding that all synagogues pay their staff in bacon?
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you're a health care provider to the public then you're not providing a religious service and you're expected to be able to fulfill patients medical needs. Can you imagine a Jehovah's Witness group starting a hospital that doesn't do blood transfusions or surgery?
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | If you're a health care provider to the public then you're not providing a religious service and you're expected to be able to fulfill patients medical needs. |
So better that the health care needs of that community are not met? This is not about patients, it is about employees. Just imagine hospitals shutting down because of this retarded regulation, I suppose that's all good as long as they aren't providing insurance for their staff that excludes condoms and the pill.
With that understood...
These are Catholic hospitals. You won't get an abortion at a Catholic hospital and it would be insane to assume that you could. The government is trying to now force them to insure their staff for birth control... this is against their churches teachings and is a violation of the first amendment to make them do this. If you work for a Catholic hospital, there is nothing stopping you from buying your own condoms or pills, but Obamao wants to force the Church to actually pay for that now.
This is a total loser issue for Obamao. Just as a refresher, I'll post the free exercise clause :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
| sts wrote: | | Can you imagine a Jehovah's Witness group starting a hospital that doesn't do blood transfusions or surgery? |
Nobody would utilize it.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty
Last edited by Muso on Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | The government is trying to now force them to insure their staff for birth control... this is against their churches teachings. |
No. It is against religious teachings to use birth control.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | 99.999% of Catholics have used or will use birth control and will have sex outside of marriage. |
| Homer Simpson wrote: | | 72.8 Percent Of All Statistics Are Made Up |
Ludicrous number you've chosen, but I'm assuming you're using hyperbole.
Is your position actually that the federal government is justified in forcing Catholic hospitals to pay for the pill, condoms, and the morning after pill for its own employees? Really?
Noonan really nailed it here :
The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business.
In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore.
I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines.
There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.
The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.
Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.
If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry you quoted some stuff I removed, it was superfluous and I figured the thread doesn't need to be going in 27 different directions.
| The Earth wrote: | | Is your position actually that the federal government is justified in forcing Catholic hospitals to pay for the pill, condoms, and the morning after pill for its own employees? Really? |
They're not explicitly paying for contraception, they're just paying for insurance that happens to cover contraception. It's not like we're forcing Islamic women to walk around without a head covering or something.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Last edited by sts on Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama turns his back on Catholics
| Quote: | In 2009, the University of Notre Dame set off months of intra-Catholic controversy by inviting a champion of abortion rights to deliver the school’s commencement address. When the day arrived, President Obama skillfully deflated the tension. He extended a “presumption of good faith” to his pro-life opponents. Then he promised Catholics that their pro-life convictions would be respected by his administration. “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion,” he said, “and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
Catholics, eager for reassurance from a leader whom 54 percent of them had supported, were duly reassured. But Obama’s statement had the awkward subordinate clauses of a contentious speech-writing process. Qualifications and code words produced a pledge that pledged little.
Now the conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). And Obama’s Catholic strategy is in shambles.
Shortly before Obama spoke at Notre Dame, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts brought suit against HHS, seeking to eliminate a grant to Catholic programs that aid victims of human trafficking. Because Catholic programs don’t refer for abortions, the ACLU alleged that public support amounts to the establishment of religion.
The Obama Justice Department defended the grant in court. But last month, HHS abruptly ended the funding. It did not matter that an independent review board had rated the bishops’ program more effective than those of its competitors — or that career HHS employees objected to the politicized handling of the grant. HHS announced it was giving preference to grantees that offer “the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.” This was described by one official as “standard procedure.” So it is now standard procedure in the Obama administration to deny funding to some Catholic programs based solely on their pro-life beliefs.
The process that produced the HHS decision remains murky. The USCCB has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for more details. But it is difficult to imagine that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was not involved in a matter of this much obvious controversy. Sebelius — an outspoken pro-choice Catholic — has a long history of conflict with Catholic authorities.
Broadly applied, the HHS policy would amount to systemic anti-Catholic bias in government programs. And the provocation is one in a series. HHS has drawn conscience protections so narrowly that Catholic colleges, universities and hospitals — any Catholic institution that employs and serves non-Catholics — will be required to offer health coverage that includes contraception and drugs that cause abortion. In global health grants, new language is appearing that requires the integration of family planning and “reproductive health” services, effectively barring the participation of Catholic institutions. Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB, calls these policies an “assault which now appears to grow at an ever-accelerating pace in ways that most of us could never have imagined.”
The main victims of this assault are not bishops but the poor and vulnerable. USCCB-sponsored human trafficking programs, for example, provide employment assistance, legal services, child care and medical screening. But because case managers won’t refer for abortions, HHS would rather see these programs shut down in favor of less effective alternatives. This form of anti-religious extremism counts casualties.
It is also politically incomprehensible. Obama’s Catholic outreach is being revealed as a transparent ploy a year before he faces reelection. A portion of the Democratic coalition — including civil libertarians and pro-choice activists — has decided to attack and marginalize Catholic leaders and institutions. And HHS is actively siding against Catholic organizations.
“We are in a war,” Sebelius told a recent pro-choice meeting. Opponents of the administration, she said, are trying to “roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America.” This is no longer the “presumption of good faith.” It has all the hallmarks of a vendetta.
How will the White House respond? More specifically, how will the Catholic chief of staff and America’s first Catholic vice president respond? They gave up their own adherence to Catholic teaching on abortion long ago. But are they really prepared to betray their co-religionists who still hold these beliefs?
Sebelius is becoming a political embarrassment at an inconvenient time. It will be significantly harder for Obama to repeat his appeal to Catholic voters while a part of his administration is at war with Catholic leaders and Catholic belief. |
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regan and Bush's former speech writers say Obama made a big mistake. News at 11.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 3849
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Congratulations. By supporting this overstep of constitutional authority, you've now set the precedent for a religious president to come in and do the same, only in a direction you'll find less than favorable.
So when an evangelical gets elected and starts mandating scriptural readings with every medical visit, you own it, you paved the way for it.
And after that Christian is gone, he'll have paved the way for a Muslim president to mandate burqas. So on and so forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Qualifications and code words produced a pledge that pledged little. |
In other words, he lies like a used car salesman. A hoodwinker. A hornswoggler. A schyster. A fucking con man.
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2009
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
question: if the catholic church would be declared a criminal organisation (as it should) would all those millions of catholics put into prison? if not: why?
_________________
| AidanJT wrote: |
...because pro-lifers (especially the catholic variety) are sick, depraved, satanic ....
|
...'people' - had to clean it up to not be offensive...
"The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Quote: | | Qualifications and code words produced a pledge that pledged little. |
In other words, he lies like a used car salesman. A hoodwinker. A hornswoggler. A schyster. A fucking con man. |
Behold the new boss, same as the old one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | By supporting this overstep of constitutional authority |
I don't see it, but if you're right the Supreme Court will decide on it.
| cach0rr0 wrote: | So when an evangelical gets elected and starts mandating scriptural readings with every medical visit, you own it, you paved the way for it.
And after that Christian is gone, he'll have paved the way for a Muslim president to mandate burqas. So on and so forth. |
Yeah, I'm sure the passing of this law will render the first amendment invalid. That makes sense.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 3849
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: |
Yeah, I'm sure the passing of this law will render the first amendment invalid. That makes sense. |
has erosion or subversion of the constitution ever happened over night, with one blatant act?
it is indeed a "slippery slope" argument, but a valid one at that. You can herald an exception being made for something that pisses off people you dont like, but when what recourse do you have really when those same people gain power, and enact something that pisses you off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I did admit I like pissing of religious folks I don't actually see this as a problem, ethical or constitutional.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
