| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:50 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. |
I was raised Catholic but never identified myself as one. It doesn't take a super-conservative to have that opinion. Of course, there are a lot of buffet Catholics.
_________________
Safety is my gaol.
US Constitution | Amendments |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | So better that the health care needs of that community are not met? |
You mean like not providing services which are against their religion? I don't mind, provided they aren't the only game in town.
_________________
Safety is my gaol.
US Constitution | Amendments |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Both religious people and atheist are missing the point.
Religion is man-made neurochemical process that manifests as antropomorphic concept where you are "protected by higher power" thus making you less stressed and regulating your serotonine levels. It doesn't mean that your dogma is true (its not) its just means that if you believe it is, you feel better. Sorta like when your mother tells you that you are the best. Its not true, but it feels good.
Atheists are like autist nerds who want to point out that its untrue, and decieve themselves into thinking if only they could argue against the dogma, that people will "realize" the truth. They wont, because they don't want to, and they don't want to because it is not in their interest to do so. Religion starts off as self-defence and self-soothing mechanism.
Organized religion abuses this mechanism for political purposes, sometimes out of pure egoistical drive, and sometimes because people are idiots.
Everybody does what they can to survive and feel good. That part is fine, the trouble with religion is that it requires belief, and once you have it, that you start thinking you are special. Which brings us back to our mothers, its great when your mother tells you that you are the best, and you feel good, the trouble starts if you believe that you really are.
Atheists do the same thing with anti-depressants. Both methods have drawbacks, but on the whole, I think that there is less problems in world with prozac then with organized religions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Prenj wrote: | Both religious people and atheist are missing the point.
Religion is man-made neurochemical process that manifests as antropomorphic concept where you are "protected by higher power" thus making you less stressed and regulating your serotonine levels. It doesn't mean that your dogma is true (its not) its just means that if you believe it is, you feel better. Sorta like when your mother tells you that you are the best. Its not true, but it feels good.
Atheists are like autist nerds who want to point out that its untrue, and decieve themselves into thinking if only they could argue against the dogma, that people will "realize" the truth. They wont, because they don't want to, and they don't want to because it is not in their interest to do so. Religion starts off as self-defence and self-soothing mechanism.
Organized religion abuses this mechanism for political purposes, sometimes out of pure egoistical drive, and sometimes because people are idiots.
Everybody does what they can to survive and feel good. That part is fine, the trouble with religion is that it requires belief, and once you have it, that you start thinking you are special. Which brings us back to our mothers, its great when your mother tells you that you are the best, and you feel good, the trouble starts if you believe that you really are.
Atheists do the same thing with anti-depressants. Both methods have drawbacks, but on the whole, I think that there is less problems in world with prozac then with organized religions. |
I agree. These are all good points.
Wasn't it Marx who described religion as "the opiate of the masses"?
I'm an atheist, by the way. However, one thing I say is that we should not be too eager to rapidly divest ourselves of religious ideology, because it has been intrinsic to our system of norms and mores. Much of it is based in wisdom learned by trial and error over thousands of years and were later codified by religion as a means to promulgate and enforce the rules.
It's not just the idea that one has a "protector". It's also the idea that one has a purpose, and that one is doing "good". It's also an informal framework of behavioral standards by which a society achieves cooperation and socially punishes those who are harmful.
If we rip it out, mocking and discarding things solely because they are religious in origin, we are likely to discover we need laws to replace parts of it. If we rip it out, we're likely to discover we need philosophy, accessible to the masses, to replace the rest of it.
I don't a person is qualified to be an atheist if they have not thought through the philosophical issues of good and bad, right and wrong, human purpose, existentialism, etc. Those who have not, and yet mock all things religious, are nothing more than lazy, self-interested hedonists.
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just saw on the news that Obama is going to make Jehovah's Witnesses pay for insurance that covers blood transfusions.
_________________
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: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Instead of inventing ridiculous hyperbole to justify your arguments, why not just admit when you are wrong?
_________________
| 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: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's an easy way to tell, if this gets brought to the Supreme Court and they decide it is unconstitutional then I am wrong.
But, no, I don't think that Catholics paying for insurance that covers things Catholics aren't supposed to do is against Church doctrine.
_________________
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: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | There's an easy way to tell, if this gets brought to the Supreme Court and they decide it is unconstitutional then I am wrong.
But, no, I don't think that Catholics paying for insurance that covers things Catholics aren't supposed to do is against Church doctrine. |
So you have no problem with the federal government mandating behavior that is a violation of the free exercise clause. Good to know.
_________________
| 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: Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | So you have no problem with the federal government mandating behavior that is a violation of the free exercise clause. Good to know. |
I would have a problem with that, I have said numerous times that I don't believe this case applies. They are not mandating that Catholics use contraception.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Next will be the Federal Government mandating that Catholic Hospitals must perform cosmetic abortions, and the defense will be that the Feds are not mandating that Catholics receive abortions.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Better they just not allow "religious medicine." Like praying for curing cancer, they can pray for the individual to change their mind.
_________________
Safety is my gaol.
US Constitution | Amendments |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old School wrote: | | Next will be the Federal Government mandating that Catholic Hospitals must perform cosmetic abortions, and the defense will be that the Feds are not mandating that Catholics receive abortions. |
Bazinga! This is actually a pretty good point.
Technically that sounds legally passable, but cosmetic abortions are more severe than handing out condoms. I can see easier how that would be abhorrent to Catholics.
We've got a number of Catholic hospitals where I live, I never realized (for example) the women's care centers of the hospitals won't deal with birth control and that does seem wrong. I'm sure all the physicians are not Catholic or religious, do they get to choose or does the hospital decide what services they can offer?
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/
| Quote: | | Note that the administration is OK with church-run institutions that only employ Catholics prohibiting contraception coverage. |
| Quote: | | The administration’s requirement comes from the Institute of Medicine within the National Academy of Sciences, which considers contraception access part of a total healthcare plan that brings down maternal and infant mortality rates. The government sets minimal basic standards for the benefits and safety conditions employers must provide to employees. |
There's a bit more info I didn't see in any of the other articles.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shadow Skill
Veteran
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What they are doing when they provide health services goes beyond the liberty that they have to worship as they please. If an institution has the religious belief that men cannot receive cancer treatments would people really be ok with a group of priests bitching because they are told to follow the same rules others follow? What happens when this particular religious institution is the only place hiring in a given area? Why shouldn't the religious institution be restricted to hiring people that already agree with their belief system rather than expecting employees to up and move to a new area in order to find employment or a different employer in the same area?
_________________
Ware wa mutekinari.
Wa ga kage waza ni kanau mono nashi.
Wa ga ichigeki wa mutekinari.
"First there was nothing, so the lord gave us light. There was still nothing, but at least you could see it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dem Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper: I Wouldn't Have Voted for Obamacare If I'd Known About HHS Regulation
| Quote: | Former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pennsylvania, cast a crucial vote in favor of Obamacare in 2010. She lost her seat that November in part because of her controversial support of Obamacare. But Dahlkemper said recently that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to provide free coverage of contraception, sterilization procedures, and the "week-after" pill "ella" that can induce early abortions.
"I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception,” Dahlkemper said in a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November. "We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage."
Of course, most abortion opponents disagree with Dahlkemper that the HHS regulation is Obamacare's only moral problem. Under Obamacare, each state's federally subsidized health care exchange is required to offer a health insurance plan that covers elective abortions unless the state passes a law opting out of the requirement. |
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dumbass.
Maybe she'll try to earn some semblance of redemption by voting to repeal it.
_________________
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: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
She was voted out of office already... mostly because she supported this authoritarian monstrosity. She's just now realizing that "it's not cool" to force bullshit on people. Rather sad that it had to come to a complete violation of the free exercise clause before she rethought her political philosophy.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: in your base, killin all your doodz
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| first amendment religion has trumped prohibitions and regulations for homicide, animal sacrifice, divorce, and drug possession/use/trafficking. do they really think government interests will beat religion for mere matters of contract? it's funny that the first black president was also a constitutional law professor, but is the second worst president in history when it comes to constitutional rights, only after FDR who put japanese in concentration camps solely based on their race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | first amendment religion has trumped prohibitions and regulations for homicide, animal sacrifice, divorce, and drug possession/use/trafficking. do they really think government interests will beat religion for mere matters of contract? it's funny that the first black president was also a guest lecturer, but is the second worst president in history when it comes to constitutional rights, only after FDR who put japanese in concentration camps solely based on their race. |
ftfy. The disgrace in the White House was never a professor.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it is a matter of insurance, just stop allowing employers to select what they offer. If you are an employer of x size, you must offer foo, etc. Takes the problem away from religion and allows people to choose or themselves.
_________________
Safety is my gaol.
US Constitution | Amendments |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shadow Skill
Veteran
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | If it is a matter of insurance, just stop allowing employers to select what they offer. If you are an employer of x size, you must offer foo, etc. Takes the problem away from religion and allows people to choose or themselves. |
+1. Interestingly eight states already have this kind of a rule. A representatives of supporters of this lawsuit effectively admitted the other day that they are upset that this federal rule is not as easy to game as these state laws. One of the states that has this type of rule is the state where Romney was governor. These laws have been ruled constitutional. This same representative had the nerve to argue that employees were free to go find another employer as if the institution has a god given right to even be in business without following rules set by the federal, state or local government.
_________________
Ware wa mutekinari.
Wa ga kage waza ni kanau mono nashi.
Wa ga ichigeki wa mutekinari.
"First there was nothing, so the lord gave us light. There was still nothing, but at least you could see it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth-control rule
| Quote: | The White House struggled Wednesday to contain the growing uproar over its birth-control mandate, with Democrats peeling off one by one in what has become an increasingly divisive election-year controversy.
Pressure to roll back the new contraception policy mounted quickly as the day wore on, driven by divisions among Democrats, mixed messages from President Obama’s advisers and a constant drumbeat from the GOP.
“It’s becoming a thorny problem for the White House and it appears to only be getting worse,” said one Democratic strategist. “The politically astute move would be to modify this thing, and quick.”
Asked if the administration should shift course, a former senior administration official said, “I don’t see how they couldn’t. It’s pretty bad.”
With the consternation rising to a fever pitch, Republicans announced a plan to move a bill soon that would repeal the mandate. And prominent Democrats are breaking with the administration over the policy, which requires some religious organizations to cover contraception in their employees’ healthcare plans.
Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) urged the White House last week to broaden the exception for religious employers. Several of their Democratic colleagues have piled on since.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said Wednesday that the Health and Human Services Department “misstepped” in adopting the new policy.
“I just don’t think this is a fight that should have been picked and I think it needs to be fixed,” Connolly said. “I have every confidence that the administration will do so.”
Tim Kaine, a former Democratic National Committee chairman running for Senate in Virginia this year, also said the White House should revisit the rule’s exemptions for religious organizations. The current policy does not apply to churches, but institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities have to comply.
“I think the White House made a good decision in including a mandate for contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act insurance policy, but I think they made a bad decision in not allowing a broad enough religious-employer exemption,” Kaine said in a radio interview, according to a transcript provided by his campaign.
Democrats who support the White House policy dug in Wednesday.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said there’s no need for the White House to adopt a wider religious exemption. Carving out churches and other strictly religious employers “was in itself a compromise,” she said, noting that eight states have contraception mandates without religious exemptions.
Twenty-three pro-abortion-rights religious groups also backed the White House policy Wednesday, saying it protects the individual choice of whether to use birth control.
Still, one senior Democratic aide said the plan has put some lawmakers in an “awkward position.”
“A lot of Democrats just don’t want to talk about it and be in the position of defending it,” the aide said. “It’s horrible timing.”
The aide said the issue has become “great messaging” for Republicans, especially those who want to court Hispanic voters of Catholic faith.
On Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney indicated there might be some wiggle room to appease those who are most concerned. The press secretary said Obama is “sensitive” to the concerns expressed by religious leaders and others on the contraception issue and said the administration was trying to find a way to implement the decision that can “allay some of the concerns expressed.” |
Also, important and related. (that would save a lot of headaches and legal battles)
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 15989
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shadow Skill wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | If it is a matter of insurance, just stop allowing employers to select what they offer. If you are an employer of x size, you must offer foo, etc. Takes the problem away from religion and allows people to choose or themselves. |
+1. Interestingly eight states already have this kind of a rule. A representatives of supporters of this lawsuit effectively admitted the other day that they are upset that this federal rule is not as easy to game as these state laws. One of the states that has this type of rule is the state where Romney was governor. These laws have been ruled constitutional. This same representative had the nerve to argue that employees were free to go find another employer as if the institution has a god given right to even be in business without following rules set by the federal, state or local government. |
The other option is to not offer insurance and add an "insurance benefit" as part of wages. The employee is then free to get their own health care.
I'm personally in favor of getting employers out of the benefits business. They use them as an incentive, then yank them (or a portion) away at a moments notice. Of course, that would require some form of single (or multi) payer insurance. All workers in a state or region fall into a risk pool, etc.
Now they're starting to complain about whether or not details given in confession should be open to criminal investigation. The same people who would use the terrorist/hidden bomb as justification for waterboarding. Well, the bishop took the priest's confession of child abuse, so out with the waterboard.
_________________
Safety is my gaol.
US Constitution | Amendments |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blah blah blah some things changed blah blah. discuss.
_________________
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 11, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | blah blah blah some things changed blah blah. discuss. |
Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance
| Quote: | Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration's proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers' health plans.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn't believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies. |
Obama needs to stop being a total dick about this and respect the bill of rights.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
