Church to declare war on Obama over birth control ~~~ The politics of the womb

I didn't know that any individual Catholics practice, believe in, or even support the Church's ban on contraception. Must be an issue to the hierarchy--and rethuglicon presidential wanna-bes.

This is all about a combination of the Catholic Church wanting to re-assert dominance over women assisted in the effort with tax payer money.

They did a study and over 90% of all catholic women have used contraception a some point in their lives.

This is just a BS issue being blown up in time for the election because the church knows that republicans support them more in their desire to put women back in the house under the control of their husbands.

I cant imagine how nice the world would be if the churches actually focused on the issues in the bible, rather than trying to legislate morality which is not in the bible either. matter of fact there is a clear separation of church and state in the bible. Give unto caesar....

I cant imagine how nice the world would be if the churches

just faded away into history where they belong.

Around 90% use it (including my wife and 4 of her 5 sisters). The old white men are losing control of the women and they don't like it.

@ tim,

This is a distraction from GOP to shift American attention on U.S economy improving.

brian,

No doubt. But, between this and the attacks on Planned Parenthood, it is likely to have the opposite effect on the election. The economy improving, the right declaring religious war on America, the attempts to deny the human and civil rights of the people, all combine to enthuse the opposition to the insane party of oppression.

And add the ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court today and the momentum is going against the bigots and oppressors.

I don't know when it became dogma.

My guess is it was when they decided outbreeding the Protestants was a priority.

The usual basis I've heard for it is that "It's not natural." The odd thing is that the Church pushes for other things that are "not natural" while ignoring the contradiction. Insisting that someone on life support with no brain function be kept alive ( no hope of recovery and the machines sure as hell aren't "natural" ) and that their clergy be celibate ( the primary "natural" purpose of any organism after it's own survival is the perpetuation of the species ) are the first ones that I can think of...

I know so many Catholics that use contraception that I don't understand how they can make an issue of it.

That is a personal decision. Having the govt come in and say YOU WILL DO THIS AND YOU WILL DO THAT against your moral values or your religious wishes is two different issues.

Liberals constantly scream for separation of church and state, except when it is something that serves YOUR ideaology like this! Then you are all for it! Obama sticking his nose into the church's overall belief is unconstitutional. I no longer have any faith in SCOTUS so I dont look for them to make any ruling. They are all on the payroll of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers who all support mass genocide against the worlds population.

Liberals constantly scream for separation of church and state

This is perfectly aligned with separation of church and state. It's assuring that businesses will not be given preferential treatment based on the religion of their owners.

Liberals constantly scream for separation of church and state, except when it is something that serves YOUR ideaology like this!

Wrong on the forcing anyone to do this or do that. It is requiring ALL employers to leave the choice up to the individual. There is no telling any individual they must use contraceptive or prohibiting them from using them. It is telling a business entity, a non-person, that they can't force their opinion on people. No one is forcing anyone to go against their person beliefs by using contraceptives. This includes those employees that don't have the same religious beliefs as the owners of the business.

My point is the two need to keep out of each others business. The Church is not a business entity. Look, I have not huge love for the Catholic church, but I do get concerned when this ever growing govt beast continues to infringe and do ends around our constitution and our Bill of Rights.

It seems each day, the government constantly test our will to stick by our constitutional rights as human beings. Obama is endlessly trying to stomp on our rights. Bush did the exact same! Both serve the banking families IMHO and not We the People!

I will agree Jade

We are each free to pursue happiness regardless of religious belief.

Jade: Indeed. And our religious organziations under the 1st amendment should not be forced by some constitution stomping administration to offer "health services" in its insurance plans which fly in the face of its religious teachings.

The Church is not a business entity.

When the Church opens a business, that business is a business entity. This law only applies to the businesses owned by the Church, not the Church itself. Hence, the government is protecting the first amendment by assuring that employers are not given preferential treatment due to their religion. It's fairly open-and-shut.

the government is protecting the first amendment by assuring that employers are not given preferential treatment due to their religion

Steve: Oh really? Then why all the waivers and favors issued by HHS to opt out of obamacare, eh?

The church has a year before the policy is implemented. During that time, the President has invited it to offer some acceptable alternative. Of course, the church isn't going to compromise because it thinks it can hurt the President politically. It isn't the first time the catholic hierarchy has had bad judgment and I'm sure it won't be the last.

The church has a year before the policy is implemented

Lassen: Whoopdee doo.

I believe that sums up the bishops' response, only possibly more eloquently than they have put it. It's clear they're not going to compromise, which makes them look like the intransigent autocrats that they are. Yet another opportunity for the President to say: we tried to keep talking but they just wouldn't do it.

Lisa,

How is the government guaranteeing your right to chose an infringement of anyone's rights?

Tim S - and since when is free birth control for all a "right"?

Tim S - and since when is free birth control for all a "right"?

Apparently November 2010 - from the Pope.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.

Tim S - and since when is free birth control for all a "right"?

Since when is an employee benefit free? That is cash out of your pocket. Cash that you have agreed to let your employer administer for you to reduce administration costs and to negotiate group rates instead of receiving in your pay check and paying higher rates as an individual in the market. The benefit to your employer is reduced payroll taxes and a more attractive compensation package to attract better employees.

It is far from free.

That is cash out of your pocket. Cash that you have agreed to let your employer administer for you to reduce administration costs and to negotiate group rates instead of receiving in your pay check and paying higher rates as an individual in the market. The benefit to your employer is reduced payroll taxes and a more attractive compensation package to attract better employees.

Throughout the last week, I've been constantly amazed at how many conservatives don't understand how health insurance works. If you want to be technical, it's not even your employer paying for it. They negotiate the group rates, but you foot the bill. It's your own money, which you should be able to spend however you'd like.

They negotiate the group rates, but you foot the bill. It's your own money, which you should be able to spend however you'd like.

Exactly, but stated more concisely. The more I repeat a point the more long winded I tend to get. Thanks for summing it up.

I like to phrase it as the employer using collective bargaining for labor. Essentially acting as a union.

the government IMO has a right to require those policies to cover contraceptives if those catholic businesses , like hospitals and schools , receive government funding.

they could opt out of receiving that funding !

The Catholic church or any other entity opting out of taking tax payer money to be used however it feels best suits its purposes including dominating women? LOL

Seriously, it's really not funny or laughable.

This isn't a war against religion so much as a war against government on behalf of the Catholic church, evangelicals, and other religious fundamentalists. The radical right is using evangelical home schooling, school vouchers, Catholic church services, etc. to establish settled law about religion's rights to be active in government. The radical right, if it wins on the various fronts concerning religion in government, will then have leeway to establish theocratic government.

Buckeye

If a person wants the government out of either, isn't the government requiring contraceptive coverage basically getting into your sex life??

Nope!!!!! It is still a personal choice unless the government says a person must use contraception.

Most Catholics don't believe that using contraception is a sin; most use it. Old guy in the Vatican is not in touch with the general population and the needs of their congregation.

Exactly Teresa. The ruling just states that the employer does not get to decide what is covered and what is not. That that determination is up to the individual. In this case the Church is an employer like all other employers and religion does not enter the equation. All employers are required to offer certain coverage. That means all employers.

The individual employee has the first amendment right to practice whatever beliefs in their private life. The individual has freedom of religion.

Since the HOSPITAL is only affliated with the Church and is not A Church, I don't see the problem. It isn't requiring the CHURCH provide contraceptives are is it?

If a person wants the government out of either, isn't the government requiring contraceptive coverage basically getting into your sex life??

LOLOLOL how is forcing a business to provide the same coverage as every other business... GETTING INTO YOUR SEX LIFE?

Man that is some spin buckeye, are you dizzy from all that? I dont know. Can you see the difference from banning sodomy in the home, and making sure a business offers coverage that everyone else enjoys? One is in the bedroom, and one is in the work place.

I really hope that clears things up for you.

Tell me this Buckeye, do you think the government should be able to tell all businesses that they can not hire the undocumented, even the businesses that like them and have no problem with them working there? why are religious morals somehow suddenly greater than secular or individual morals? Why cant I just say it is against my religion to hire blacks? That I believe that God put us on different continents on purpose. Would you be ok with that?

If a person wants the government out of either, isn't the government requiring contraceptive coverage basically getting into your sex life??

How is requiring the option being available to you getting into your sex life. Seems it is guaranteeing that it is YOUR choice and no one else's. That would be getting everyone else out of your sex life except those you invite in.

The government is enabling coverage for something that 90% of catholic women already use. If catholics really followed their church edicts then they wouldn't use it at all - regardless of who covers it. The "true" catholics aren't being forced to use it, they can choose not to if that is their religious belief. The government is simply making easier for women to choose. This law expands choice. Choice = freedom.

Contraception is more than a moral decision, it is a civic necessity. We as a society are already stretching our resources thin. If catholics started having 15-20 children they would quickly be pulled into poverty - which WE have to pay for! Contraception is a health care issue for our nation. The more access women have, the healthier our people will be.

My ancestors came from Ireland, and I know the Irish right now generally not only use condoms but are anti Vatican after many years of Catholic priests sexually abusing Irish children. That's what happens when a Church has not changed for centuries and not addressed its own problems. The Catholic Church in Ireland has a diminishing recruitment of clergy and diminishing crowds on Sunday. They have a gargantuan credibility issue with the Irish people.

My ancestors came from Ireland, and I know the Irish right now generally not only use condoms but are anti Vatican after many years of Catholic priests sexually abusing Irish children. That's what happens when a Church has not changed for centuries and not addressed its own problems. The Catholic Church in Ireland has a diminishing recruitment of clergy and diminishing crowds on Sunday. They have a gargantuan credibility issue with the Irish people.

The Catholic Church is going to find that it has overstepped its bounds here. After the political hacks get done talking this story up and the smoke clears, the church will notice about 250 million people giving it the finger.

Ripley8

"the government IMO has a right to require those policies to cover contraceptives if those catholic businesses , like hospitals and schools , receive government funding. They could opt out of receiving that funding"

I agree 100% with this and would hope the government would allow this option but I doubt it will.

jade,

"I find it disturbing that the church is pro-life when it comes to women's bodies and the unborn or not yet concieved. They are not however as strict with the death penalties and war deaths"

I don't know what church you attend but the one I attend prays for an end to abortion AND an end to war.

buckeyenut

I agree the government should in no way force a church group to implement any policy that runs counter to their religious beliefs.

One way to eliminate these controversies once and for all would be to prohibit any religious groups from receiving any government funds or financial considerations of any kind whatsoever so that when a controversial policy, like that under discussion, is proposed or implemented they will have nothing to fear since it won't apply to them.

In the meantime believers of whatever persuasion can practice their religion to the second coming free from governmental interference while absorbing all the costs that practice entails.

That sounds like real religious freedom to me.

J.W.

I agree with what you wrote. I am curious by financial consideration do you mean tax exempt status?

Should the seeder stay on topic rather than posting bullshi. questions??

Your job as the seeder is to keep this on topic. Your post "Are those who use contraception bound for hell. Should women who have an abortion be damned" serves no purpose but to inject heated rhetoric into the discussion. Your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand and you damn well know it. Now if you want to have a rational discussion please carry on but keep it on topic. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO REMIND THE SEEDER OF THIS.

Thanks.

They are not however as strict with the death penalties and war deaths.

I don't know about Benedict, but John Paul II and others have actually condemned both on several occasions.

If a person wants the government out of either, isn't the government requiring contraceptive coverage basically getting into your sex life??

There are many health conditions for which the oral contraceptive are used besides simply pregnancy prevention (although such prevention often is necessary for a woman's healthy). So the government role here is to make the best medical advice a part of policy. The recommendation to mandate no-cost coverage of BCPs was made by a panel of top medical experts in the field at the Institute of Medicine and has been enthusiastically endorsed by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) hardly a hotbed of radical leftist ideology.

I find it disturbing that the church is pro-life when it comes to women's bodies and the unborn or not yet concieved. They are not however as strict with the death penalties and war deaths.

The church is formally against the death penalty and did, rather weakly, protest Bush's invasion of Iraq and his authorizing torture and other crimes against humanity, but we never saw the orchestrated attack from the pulpits
for those issues that we did over the past few weeks over birth control. It appears that the decision to pull out all the stops is largely dependent on how politically safe (i.e., will the insane right wing hate apparatus approve) the church thinks it will be.

Requiring coverage is not the same as requiring use! However, prohibiting coverage is prohibiting use for many low income women. And, given the cost savings of birth control to the insurer, raising the cost of the premiums of everyone.

Their interpretation of the bible is that you can only have sex to create children. Of course when the book was written they never considered over population.

Their interpretation of the bible is that you can only have sex to create children.

Or at least allow the possibility for "God's will" to be made manifest in the form of children conceived without the interference of artificial BC.

What I never understood, aside from the selective interpretation of how the definition of "natural" is applied in doctrine as I mentioned above, is how a supposedly-omnipotent God's will would be hindered by a few pills or a condom, or why He'd put a soul into a fetus that wouldn't be brought to term for whatever reason if He's omniscient?

Strange too is the fact God made us one of the very few, if not only, animals that can have sex without the purpose of procreation. Let a male lion, for example, try to mate with a lioness if she is not in heat. We are also among the few animals that mate face to face. Sex for humans is about a lot more than having babies.

Or at least allow the possibility for "God's will" to be made manifest in the form of children conceived without the interference of artificial BC.

But I thought God was all powerful. Or is it that artificial birth control is too powerful for God to overcome? If that is the case, is that entity really God? Maybe it is Satan that wants us to overpopulate the carrying capacity of the planet and suffer the myriad of negative effects and mass die off of this path? Maybe Satan has taken over the Church by deception ans is working diligently on the demise of the human race?

OMG, the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

As if the people who use their bible as a club follow even a shred of all the whacky instructions therein contained. My I say for the umpteenth time that it was for fear of the bible thumping hypocrites/fanatics (such as are in full display over this ginned up BCP ranting) getting control of it that our Constitution forbids intermingling of government and religion/superstition.

What some are forgetting or don't realize is birth control is also used to regulate women's cycles. It is not always used for a prevention for pregnancy. Would that be different?

But you're suggesting there is logic or reasoning in what the Catholic Church or its followers are using in this argument.

If they employed logic or reasoning, there would not be thousands of former altar boys suffering the ravages of child sex abuse.

If they employed logic or reasoning, priest would have wives to screw.

If they truly had sense they would forget the mindless superstition and live their lives.

So does "god" make mistakes?

He created religion and those that follow it blindly didn't he?

So does "god" make mistakes?

He created religion and those that follow it blindly didn't he?

God didn't create religion; humans did.

God didn't create religion; humans did.

If we are talking about Christianity, humans only created belief after "god" sent his son to walk among us, thus pushing us into that religion. If you believe that stuff.

Oh, so Abraham was talking to himself and Moses carved the tablets, etc. Well that I can believe. A bunch of psychotics created religion with the help of numerous hallucinogenic drugs. That makes sense.

Seriously, that explains so much about religions around the world. Then those hallucinations were further corrupted by those seeking power. And low and behold we have the religions of today.

Oh, so Abraham was talking to himself and Moses carved the tablets, etc. Well that I can believe. A bunch of psychotics created religion with the help of numerous hallucinogenic drugs. That makes sense.

Ever notice that nobody else was around Abraham and his son when god spoke to him? No one else climbed Sinai with Moses and nobody saw him for 40 days and nights while god dictated the 10 commandments? Only Joseph Smith was able to translate the golden plates?

so many of these close encounters with the divine happen with no witnesses and no corroboration?

Is it any wonder that most of these dogmas won't hunt?

Tim

My view is that the government has picked a fight it would better have avoided. There are alternative providers from whom women can receive reproductive services not available at religious medical institutions.

A real problem may lie with with employee health care plans that do not cover reproductive services at non religious institutions.

APA gives the Sec of HHS the power to determine what the minimum coverage is in healthcare plans. This applies to every employer based healthcare benefit. It does not single out religious employers, nor does it exclude them. It ignores the religion of the employer completely. As it should.

But the real solution is to do away with private health insurance and replace it with a national single payer program. This program should allow States to add to the coverage as they see fit.

I am honored and humbled, Jade.

Jade-log, I agree with you. The Catholic Church is a business and it must increase its "income" by 10-15% a year just like a business, so they have a vested interest in an increase in the Catholic population.

Jade-log, the function of an institution is to preserve the structure, function and history of the institution. The sites you visited are part of that effort. Institutions are important in our society in that regard but sadly the flip side is that they become inflexible.

I agree Jade, what surprises me is how many hidden secrets there are.

I've seen a stat thrown around a number of times that some 90% of American Catholic women have used a contraception, it would certainly seem as though there is a disconnect between the men running the Catholic Church and the women who belong to it.

That is their personal choice. And that is why I favor this rule, it leaves the choice in the hands of the individual and takes it out of the hands of a group of manipulative autocrats. Is that NOT the definition of religious freedom? The ability of each individual to worship in their own way.

That is their personal choice. And that is why I favor this rule, it leaves the choice in the hands of the individual and takes it out of the hands of a group of manipulative autocrats.

That's exactly right and why I believe this is just a bunch of made up nonsense. Nobody is being forced to have abortions or use a contraception with this. Don't want to use your coverage for contraception, fine, don't.

So they whine that they are indirectly supporting contraception, well welcome to society. I'm not very happy when my tax dollars indirectly support wars I don't believe in but I consider that the price I pay for living in this society.

Whatever happened to the notion of rendering unto Caesar anyways?

The GOTP plans to keep Obama a "one term President" by turning him into the boogeyman ?

Well, despite their best efforts, it's only worked on the most ill-informed, most rabidly right portion of the population.

AMEN Willard!!!!!!!

sunshine girl

Consider Bangladesh with about 150,000,000 people and a land area about the size of New York State.

It's hard to imagine 1/2 our population crammed into NY State, but that seems to be ok with the religious nutjobs we unfortunately have an ample supply of.

It's funny which events they select for that category and which ones they ignore.

Too many religionists see the 2010 election as an act of "god."

Now that makes more sense as a punishment from God than do earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. You asked for this, here live it. How do you like it now? It hurts when you smash your hand with a hammer, doesn't it?

It is likely the Supreme Court would overturn the HHS rule.

Doubtful. In doing so the SCOTUS would be granting church-operated businesses permission to break any U.S. law at will. The church itself has expanded freedoms within its own walls. When it reaches outside those walls into the world of running a business, it has to play by the same rules as everyone else.

This is not a religious issue. It is a labor issue in the United States. The rule is that employers will offer contraception coverage as part of their health insurance benefits. It has nothing to do with religion. It is not forcing anyone to go against their religious beliefs by shoving a pill down a woman's throat or strapping someone to a table and performing sterilization surgery on them. It is not telling the Church what they can or can not say in their sermons, masses or other rites. It is telling ALL EMPLOYERS this is the minimum to offer your employees.

You do not have to be a catholic to work in a catholic hospital or other catholic business. For them to force their religious views on their employees is a violation of the religious freedom of those employees.

I have read opinions that it will be overturned.

I don't think it will come to that though. In some way shape or form the administration will back down and a way will be found to provide the mandated coverage without religious groups having to violate their conscience.

I think there is no chance that the Church will co-operate with this ruling (unless it is mitigated to the degree that it no longer forces the Church to pay for something that it preaches against), and no chance Catholic hospitals schools and universities and charities will stop operating.

The far left is living in a fantasy land if they believe they will "win" this fight.

This is what is known as "a bridge too far".

The rule is that employers will offer contraception coverage as part of their health insurance benefits. It has nothing to do with religion. It is not forcing anyone to go against their religious beliefs by shoving a pill down a woman's throat or strapping someone to a table and performing sterilization surgery on them. It is not telling the Church what they can or can not say in their sermons, masses or other rites. It is telling ALL EMPLOYERS this is the minimum to offer your employees.

The point is - it is (or it was) up to the employer to decide the content of the coverage, and up to the employee to stay employed in the same place, or seek employment elswere. I also believe that faith-based employers were and still are exempt from many rules that apply to the general population. So two points - one the Fed has no business telling any business what should and should not be in the employee coverage. Two the Fed has no business telling the churches how to run their business. Other than that...

I keep seeing you reply without actually addressing my point, sam, both here and in your own thread on the subject. So let me ask you, directly, just to be absolutely sure you aren't missing it.

Sambonner, how do you reconcile your view with the counter-argument that granting special exemptions for religious-run businesses sets a precedent of allowing said businesses to break U.S. law? If this precedent is set, what would prevent the Catholic church from opening a chain of restaurant-bars and serving alcohol to minors?

I also believe that faith-based employers were and still are exempt from many rules that apply to the general population.

They do, and are -- in the confines of their own church. Once they open a business, they play by the rules of secular businesses. Otherwise you've set up the dangerous and destructive precedent of allowing faith-based employers to break U.S. law in business practices.

Two colleges have sued to challenge the contraception rule. They are Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic school in North Carolina, and Colorado Christian University near Denver. College officials say the mandate forces them "to violate their deeply held religious beliefs." The Catholic Conference has not yet decided on joining a lawsuit, but "the bishops are eager to pursue every lawful means to stop this mandate," said Anthony R. Picarello Jr., the conference's general counsel.

The legal challenge got a major boost nearly three weeks ago, when the high court strengthened the Constitution's protection for religious freedom. In a 9-0 defeat for the administration, the justices said the First Amendment gives "special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations" in decisions about their employees.

At issue was a clash between the rights of church employers and the government's interest in protecting the rights of employees. The administration had backed a job-bias suit filed by a teacher who was fired by a Lutheran school. Churches and church schools are not exempt from civil rights claims, the administration argued.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Constitution does not allow for "government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself." He called the administration's view "extreme" and "remarkable." Legal scholars called his opinion the court's most important for religious freedom in two decades.

Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/supreme-113427-contraceptive-court.html#ixzz1lhysAYSw

It is a made up issue if you provide insurance and you can supply Viagara you can provide the pill or other forms of contraceptives.

If a church that provides benefits is allowed to discriminate against women who want the pill then soon they will be allowed to discriminate against providing other medicine like retrovirals or anti cancer drugs because the need for those medicines will have been created by engaging in activities and sexual practices that the church deems against their religious beliefs.

They do, and are -- in the confines of their own church. Once they open a business, they play by the rules of secular businesses. Otherwise you've set up the dangerous and destructive precedent of allowing faith-based employers to break U.S. law in business practices.

I would think that , from a constitutional standpoint, it would be decided on a very narrow basis. Forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something it specifically teaches against, something that is prohibited in an uncontradicted or amended papal encyclical, will be seen as "government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself".

Catholic hospitals are Catholic institutions, there is no question about it, as are schools or universities.

On another issue, not so directly connected to church teaching, or unconnected, of course any freedom of religion protection should not prevail, but I think the religious groups would probably win this one , based on the recent decision.

Mr. Rabbit,

PPACA empowers the Sec. of HHS to decide what is and is not part of a standard coverage policy. Keep up with the laws. And Many states have these requirements already and they have withstood the legal challenges and the religious organization have survived these atrocities of war with no harm done.

It is time for those that have a superiority complex about their religions to get over themselves.

They do, and are -- in the confines of their own church. Once they open a business, they play by the rules of secular businesses. Otherwise you've set up the dangerous and destructive precedent of allowing faith-based employers to break U.S. law in business practices.

Actually - no. Specifically there was a number of lawsuits about doctors and pharmacies on the abortion issue. Doctors not prescribing abortion pills to the rape victims, and pharmacists refusing to fill out prescriptions on the basis of their faith. Take a wild guess which way went of ALL of these decisions? And these were not even church based organizations to begin with. Having said that allow me to re-iterate my first point - the Fed has not business to tell businesses how to run their business and treat their employees. As soon as we agree on that - we can agree on your statement above.

PPACA empowers the Sec. of HHS to decide what is and is not part of a standard coverage policy. Keep up with the laws.

Well, for starters let's see if the whole thing withstands its legal challenges, and the second thing let's see after it withstands (which hopefully it will not) it will have that ability. You see - state powers are somewhat different from the Fed.

But as it stands now, it is the law.

I think that many Catholics would be shocked at the number of students at Catholic colleges and universities that use some form [rubbers, the pill, inserts etc.] of birth control.

It's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant.

Is it? I thought birth-control was the point.

Forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something it specifically teaches against, something that is prohibited in an uncontradicted or amended papal encyclical, will be seen as "government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself".

Of course it's being "seen" that way. That doesn't mean the view holds up to logical scrutiny. The Catholic church isn't being forced to pay for anything it teaches against. If it doesn't want to abide by U.S. law, it can feel free to close its businesses. That solution comes with its own side-effects, but it is a solution. As long as the church wants to run businesses, those businesses have to comply with the law. If the law runs counter to their faith, they need to take it on the chin or get out of the business. Simple as that.

This notion that religious people can't be forced to comply with U.S. law is ludicrous. I might as well open my own business and claim that my religion doesn't believe in paying taxes. By the argument you're using, this plan is flawless and I can run a tax-free business, safely shielded by my deep beliefs.

Having said that allow me to re-iterate my first point - the Fed has not business to tell businesses how to run their business and treat their employees. As soon as we agree on that - we can agree on your statement above.

If you're arguing in favor of libertarianism in general, that's an entirely separate discussion. Instead, let's keep this grounded in the real world of how the law actually works today, not how you'd like it to work. The federal government does regularly tell businesses how to treat their employees. You may not like it, but that's a factual starting point. Given that premise, faith-run businesses cannot be given special permission to break the law.

If you want to alter the premise to start with, and campaign for libertarianism in business practices, have at it -- but it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether faith-owned businesses should be held to the same standards and practices as secular ones.

This notion that religious people can't be forced to comply with U.S. law is ludicrous. I might as well open my own business and claim that my religion doesn't believe in paying taxes. By the argument you're using, this plan is flawless and I can run a tax-free business, safely shielded by my deep beliefs.

I was quoting the recent Supreme Court ruling. I guess the issue is, is a Catholic hospital a religious institution? If it is, your argument's goose is cooked. The court has just said the government cannot interfere with religious groups decisions concerning their employees when it "effects the faith and mission of the church itself". I would think that catholic hospitals and colleges can be shown to have a necessary organizational connection to the Catholic Church in order to prevail in court.

If the secularists don't like it, I guess they can try to have Catholic hospitals and colleges deaccredited.

This is a bit reminiscent of the article about the Church of Scientology lawyer telling a judge that Scientology law supercedes federal law. LOL What a joke. That is just another bluff just like this one is. Old tired and stale dogma is just that. Old, tired, and stale. Eventually it will pass as all old, tired, and stale stuff does. Each generation moves farther and farther from it until it eventually changes, dies, or the young split off and start a new church with a more contemporary dogma. That is called "social evolution." HEH HEH HEH HEH

I guess the issue is, is a Catholic hospital a religious institution?

No. That's the entire point. It is owned and operated by the Catholic church, but the operations therein are not permitted to be explicitly religious.

For example, the Roman Catholic church does not officially believe in male circumcision. But, Catholic hospitals can and will still perform male circumcisions, because the actions inside the hospital are dictated by the norms of hospitals, not the norms of the Catholic faith.

You keep citing the Supreme Court to attempt a narrow precedent, but you're overlooking the decades upon decades of precedent that establishes outreach programs as separate from the internal operations of a church. This is why faith-based businesses like non-profits, hospitals, and schools aren't allowed to prostheletize. The Supreme Court has established that those organizations are allowed to do good works in the name of their faith, but cannot use them as platforms for their faith. The same applies here.

I think it is going to be immaterial. The Obama administration and campaign has now had a number of people, including David Axelrod and Jay Carney come out and say this issue will be reconsidered.

It is a horrible thing to force to the forefront during a re-election campaign, and they realize it.

As for the Supreme Court, the lawyer for the two religious organizations that have already filed suit over the health insurance mandate says he is confident they will win if it goes to SCOTUS, and he cites the recent 9-0 decision as part of his confidence. The man , whose name is Mark Rienzi, also teaches constitutional law at Catholic University, so I presume he knows at least a little about the constitution. I guess we will find out, perhaps.

ps

The Catholic University of America (CUA) is a private university located in Washington, D.C. in the United States. It is a pontifical university of theCatholic Church in the United States and the only institution of higher education founded by the U.S. Catholic bishops.^[3] Established in 1887 as a graduate and research center following approval by Pope Leo XIII on Easter Sunday,^[4] the university began offering undergraduate education in 1904.

wikipedia

It does not sound to me like this is a secular institution, yet they would not be exempt under the new law.

I think it is going to be immaterial. The Obama administration and campaign has now had a number of people, including David Axelrod and Jay Carney come out and say this issue will be reconsidered.

You may be right, but pointing out that the administration might kowtow to shrill demands is a poor way of side-stepping the argument once your point has been backed into a corner. Whether the administration backs off on this or not, the fact remains that the initial decision is logically, and legally, consistent.

Do they hire non-catholics as professors or non-instructional staff? If they do, they should not be allowed to discriminate against those employees based on religion.

Look this is absolutely a freedom of religion issue and I have not been backed into any corner. You have this really annoying habit of acting self-congratulatory.

The administration handled this extremely poorly, including betraying the expectations of Catholic leaders they had been previously working directly with to pass Obamacare in the first place.

This is a matter of principle. Government should not attempt to force religious entities to violate their conscience, per the U.S. constitution. If Obama does not reconsider, the matter will go to the Supreme Court and we will see.

Look this is absolutely a freedom of religion issue and I have not been backed into any corner.

I'm not sure what else one would call it when you avoid addressing my points for as long as possible, finally do, and within three responses you begin avoiding the subject again.

The administration handled this extremely poorly, including betraying the expectations of Catholic leaders they had been previously working directly with to pass Obamacare in the first place.

From a PR perspective I'm inclined to agree. Then again, I'm not sure anyone in the administration foresaw this kind of insane overreaction a fairly cut-and-dry legal issue. Church-run businesses are held to the same laws as all other businesses. It should be that simple.

This is a matter of principle. Government should not attempt to force religious entities to violate their conscience, per the U.S. constitution.

And back to your talking point, disregarding how I've already dealt with it. For someone who doesn't like the claim that you've been backed into a corner, you really aren't addressing my points head-on.

It is a matter of principle, and the Constitution. The Constitution protects religious entities from interference, but it also forbids them from favoritism. If the government were dictating the activities within the church itself, it would be interference. Deciding not to make special exemptions for faith-based businesses is properly refusing to show favoritism. It's a double-edged sword, and opponents of the measure like yourself are trying to split the blade.

But by all means, spout your platitudes about principles and avoid my arguments some more. It's been working out so well for you so far.

Wanna hear what a former law clerk for a Supreme Court Justice says about this matter?

He says it is an open and shut case, just not for your side.

The HHS rule would allow (but not require) the HHS bureaucracy to establish exemptions from this mandate only for an extremely narrow category of “religious employers”: an organization qualifies as a “religious employer” only if its purpose is the “inculcation of religious values,” it “primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization,” and it “serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.” As the head of Catholic Charities USA observed, “the ministry of Jesus Christ himself” would not qualify for the exemption. Nor will Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic hospitals, food banks, homeless shelters, most Catholic schools, and even many or most diocesan offices, much less Catholic business owners who strive to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The HHS rule has properly aroused criticism across the political spectrum for its trampling of religious liberty, as this vehement “J’Accuse” essay by Michael Sean Winters, “a liberal and a Democrat,” illustrates. (For other examples, see theWashington Post’s house editorial and NRO’s.) Unlike Winters, I’m not at all surprised that, when President Obama goes beyond talk to action, he sides with his “friends at Planned Parenthood and NARAL” and “treat[s] shamefully those Catholics who went out on a limb to support” him.

What I do find remarkable—even amazing (to reprise Justice Kagan’s term)—is that the HHS mandate appears to be so clearly unlawful. In particular, I don’t see how the Obama administration could actually believe that the HHS mandate is compatible with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (The Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) that Congress lacked the power to apply RFRA against the states, but the Court recognizes, as its decision in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegetal (2006) makes clear, that RFRA applies against the federal government.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289341/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-religious-freedom-restoration-act-introduction-ed-wh

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289373/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-exercise-religion-ed-whelan

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289383/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-substantially-burden-ed-whelan

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289534/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-least-restrictive-means-ed-whelan

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289535/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-compelling-governmental-interest-ed-whelan

"As I have spelled out in the foregoing five posts, I believe that the HHS mandate, beyond being an assault on general principles of religious liberty, is an open-and-shut violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Experts in the field whom I have consulted heartily agree. If there is anyone who believes that my analysis is flawed, I would be happy to consider any counter-arguments, and I will, as usual, make any appropriate corrections to my analysis.

I would like to close this initial presentation with three points:

1. RFRA might often be violated inadvertently, when legislators or policymakers neglect to give adequate attention to how a law or regulation will affect an obscure religious minority or when the consequences are genuinely difficult to foresee in advance. Here, by contrast, the Obama administration knew exactly what it was doing. Both in advance of its August 2011 interim final rule and before its recent final announcement, the administration received thousands and thousands of comments about the impact that its rule would have on employers who had religious objections to covering contraceptives and abortifacients. The Obama administration’s violation of RFRA is knowing and willful conduct that displays contempt for the religious views of those it seeks to coerce.

2. One must wonder what legal advice, if any, HHS Secretary Sebelius sought before finalizing the mandate. Did HHS lawyers actually advise whether the mandate violated RFRA? And, if so, what was their advice? Did HHS solicit the advice of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel? Or was it not important enough, or too inconvenient, to get well-informed legal advice?

3. Sebelius claims in her announcement that the HHS mandate “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” The Obama administration made a similar claim in the Hosanna-Tabor case, when it contended that its novel position that there was no “ministerial exception” to the employment-discrimination laws struck a proper balance. But as Chief Justice Roberts concluded his unanimous opinion,

[T]he First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.

So too, here on the HHS mandate, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has struck the balance (the same balance, as this post of mine notes at the end, that the Free Exercise Clause requires under the circumstances): Employers whose religious convictions forbid them from providing coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients must be free not to do so."

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289635/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-some-closing-observations-ed-whelan

Turns out, on a federal basis, you can't force ANYONE* to pay for something they say is against their religion

*( and can jump through other legal hoops)

He says it is an open and shut case, just not for your side.

Appeal to authority fallacy. I'll skip ahead to where you actually speak for yourself.

1. The possibility of a future violation is not, itself, a violation. That's a slippery slope fallacy.

2. Baseless speculation.

3. An out-of-context quote from Roberts. You're referring to a ruling that dealt specifically with how the church can deal with people who are assigned to teach its religious tenets. You seem like a bright enough guy to discern the difference between that and offering voluntary health care that adheres to broad rules applied to all businesses equally.

So, I've dealt with your points head-on. How about you try dealing with mine? Here it is again in its simplest form. You seem to keep missing it:

Church-run businesses are held to the same laws as all other businesses.

You either have to agree with this simple principle, or argue that a business is allowed to break U.S. law if it's owned by a religious institution. Which is it?

A real, live ex-law clerk? Shazzam, sam, you really pulled out your biggest [pop] gun there.

There are something like 28 states , we keep hearing, that have similar mandates. The question could be asked , if it is illegal, how could that be?

This Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies only on a federal level.

We also hear why is the Catholic Church complaining about the federal mandate when there are already state mandates?

The Catholic Church has been largely able to avoid the state mandates either through exemptions or by self insuring.

I did learn something interesting while looking for information about this topic. Some Catholic institutions, such as Georgetown and DePaul universities already offer health care plans to their employees that contain birth control provisions. I couldn't tell from the story I read if they did it willingly or through some level of coercion. That was interesting to see though.

A real, live ex-law clerk? Shazzam, sam, you really pulled out the big gun there.

Whelan served as general counsel to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary .

Happier? I can keep going.

You either have to agree with this simple principle, or argue that a business is allowed to break U.S. law if it's owned by a religious institution. Which is it?

It doesn't matter.

You need to read the material.

I read and responded to your entire post, Sam. I'm not going to accept that reading each of your links is a prerequisite for you to extend the common courtesy of answering a simple question. If you're unwilling to do that, you can gussy up the white flag however you'd like. It's not fooling anyone.

Steve, you are acting childish. Where did all the bragging go?

I thought, before I read this article, that it would be important to determine the distinction or connection between the 'church" and the "church's hospital".

Let me put it like this, according to a man who was general council for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and had served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, it doesn't matter.

According to the RFRA law , it is the religious belief of the employer that matters.

"it’s clear, for purposes of RFRA, that a person engages in an “exercise of religion” when he, for religious reasons, refuses to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients."

It is the belief of the employer that he is exercising his religious beliefs , not the religion or non religious affiliation of the employee that matters.

The Obama administration could have avoided all this by setting up a system where this coverage could have been provided outside of a demand for religious groups to go against their principles.

Steve, you are acting childish.

Of course. I'm asking you to stop plugging your ears and actually respond to what I say during a discussion, but I'm the one acting childish.

Let me put it like this, according to a man who was general council for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and had served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, it doesn't matter.

Good for him. It's still an appeal to authority fallacy to claim that his opinion seals the discussion. If you want to argue his side, actually argue it. Don't just use his status as a bludgeon to add weight to your own opinion.

According to the RFRA law , it is the religious belief of the employer that matters.

Here's the text of the RFRA in its entirety. Feel free to point out where it states that the religious belief of the employer matters. Or, heck, the word "employer" or "business" at all.

You're confusing the opinion of a man that you happen to agree with, with the law itself. The law says nothing even close to what you're claiming. It's his interpretation. That's fine, laws are open to interpretation, but don't try to claim the RFRA as some kind of trump card when it's anything but.

So, according to your interpretation, the RFRA means that a religious-owned business is free to break U.S. law in order to align with their own religious tenets. Do you realize the problem with the precedent this would set, or do I need to spell it out with some examples?

Should I listen to a renowned lawyer who is extremely familiar with the material, or...... you?

Hmmm , tough choice I've got here.

I will assume you did not read his 6 part series, so to answer your question

here is the pertinent part of the RFRA Act

"(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

---------------------------

a) is referring to whether or not the Catholic Church is expressing religious belief by denying to pay for contraception through health insurance. It is , whether it be through a parish church or through a church hospital or university. As I said, as I read the explanation, it does not matter what the entity is that is denying the health insurance. If it were the Chicago Cubs and the owner of the team said 'because of my religious beliefs I do not want to provide health insurance that encompasses contraception', and he could show to the court's satisfaction that he was in fact exercising religious belief, he could win the case, depending on other factors.

b) refers to either that there is a compelling government interest in denying this religious expression

and that the restriction (in this case the mandate) of religious expression is the least restrictive means available

-

The article goes through the entire process of explaining b.

a. is self explanatory. The Church claims exercise of religion in denying the contraceptive benefit in health insurance.

I'll give you the links that pertains to b.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289534/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-least-restrictive-means-ed-whelan

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289535/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-compelling-governmental-interest-ed-whelan

It seems to me that this RFRA Act exists to make it easier for people to claim "freedom of religion" as opposed to "freedom from religion" (the secularist theme), provided that they can meet the requirements of Sec 3.b.

That is what will happen here, according to Whelan.

When a guy with his background says it's a no brainer, I am inclined to think it is at least likely that , while it may not be a no brainer, he is probably right about the decision.

Whelan's just another right wing lawyer. They're a dime a dozen. Same is true for the left wing ones. I wouldn't insult anyone on the right by shoving, say, David Boies at them as the final word on a legal matter. Why would a right winger think he could get away with doing that to me? Now someone who's really sharp would have found a LEFT wing lawyer of prominence and stature who agreed with him. That'd give me some trouble.

Should I listen to a renowned lawyer who is extremely familiar with the material, or...... you?

Considering you're having a discussion with me, it'd be nice if you'd listen and respond. I'm not asking you to regard my legal opinion above his; just to accept it as his opinion, and to recognize that other legal experts clash with him on the issue. You were using an appeal to authority, and I had to coax an actual argument out of you.

I notice that, yet again, you've dodged responding to my main point. Unsurprising.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection

Hospitals aren't people. Corporations have been granted the rights of people -- which I have separate issues with -- but the Catholic church itself is neither a corporation, nor a person.

I'd also argue that this issue isn't a substantial burden. When 98% of your parishioners use birth control, the requirement to give them the option to use birth control is far less than "substantial." Again: this is an interpretive issue, but I think you'd have a difficult time arguing that a requirement for a business that's in conflict with 2% of the beliefs of the group that owns them is a pretty far stretch to call a burden.

Plus, just in case you thought I might forget, I asked you to point out where the RFRA explicitly states that it protects the rights of employers. This was in response to you saying "according to the RFRA," implying that the RFRA actually contains any such language. It does not.

For the first amendment to function, all businesses and persons need to be treated equally, despite their religious affiliation. If the legal requirements to function as a business conflict with your religion, you need to get out of that business. You want these exemptions to apply to the Catholic church, but that's not how the law works. An action like this would have to apply across the board, to every religious group and person. If we interpet the law the way you argue, any employer can argue that any U.S. law conflicts with their religion. It's a recipe for disaster.

It strikes me that you may be having a little trouble coming to grips with the possibility that there may be more freedom OF religion in this country than you thought.

Does the HHS mandate “substantially burden” the “exercise of religion” by those persons and organizations who have religious beliefs that forbid them from providing contraceptives and abortifacients? Again, the answer is clearly yes.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church is quite clear. Contraception is not allowed.

The HHS mandate forces Catholic employers to choose between following the precepts of their religion and incurring huge fines, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of their religion in order to stay in business, on the other hand. Government imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against Catholics for their opposition to contraceptives and abortifacients.

I have a hard time believing that the Court would not find it a substantial burden to the Church to either have to pay tens of millions of dollars a year in fines or be forced to go out of business.

What you are doing is giving your reason why they should conform to the mandate, not showing what the burden would be if they don't.

-

I don't see the "hospitals are not people" idea having any role in this.

And your suggestion that his arguments are invalid because "employer" is not mentioned in the RFR Act, I don't know what to do with that one.

nationalreview.com is hardly a neutral source. They are far right apologists.

I don't care if he is the man in the moon. He worked at the Supreme Court and has held a high position as a lawyer for the U.S. Senate, the Judiciary Committee in fact. Obviously he is an extremely credible expert.

It strikes me that you may be having a little trouble coming to grips with the possibility that there may be more freedom OF religion in this country than you thought.

I fully support freedom of religion, Sam. I also support freedom from religion. The government can't play favorites, or the first amendment loses all meaning.

And I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

I have a hard time believing that the Court would not find it a substantial burden to the Church to either have to pay tens of millions of dollars a year in fines or be forced to go out of business.

You're suggesting that despite the contraception rule being disobeyed by 98% of practitioners; despite the fact that by your own admission some Catholic institutions have already implemented this policy; despite the fact that a majority polled Catholics say they agree with mandatory contraception as part of insurance plans; and despite the RFRA referring to "persons" rather than religious bodies -- despite all of those factors, you think a lawyer could argue "substantial burden" and have a solid case?

Yipes.

What you are doing is giving your reason why they should conform to the mandate, not showing what the burden would be if they don't.

The "burden" would be obeying the legal statutes in place for all other businesses, as some Catholic institutions are already doing voluntarily, and as a majority of Catholics believe that they should.

I don't see the "hospitals are not people" idea having any role in this.

You cited the RFRA as your legal ground. The RFRA only refers to persons, not religious groups, much less non-prosthelytizing businesses that happen to be owned by religious groups. The foundation of your legal argument is unsound. Dismissing it without reason won't change that.

And your suggestion that his arguments are invalid because "employer" is not mentioned in the RFR Act, I don't know what to do with that one.

Then don't make claims you can't back up:

According to the RFRA law , it is the religious belief of the employer that matters.

You want yipes!, I'll give you yipes!

The substantial burden on the Church for exercising it's religious beliefs , unless it is granted relief from the mandate, is not rhetorical, it is draconian. They would face millions of dollars in punitive fines, per year, for not providing coverage, or would have to go out of business.

Again, you are advocating for why they should comply ( many of their members already use conception, a few of their institutions give this coverage now, etc) as sort of a concession to "everybody's doing it", but you are not showing what their burden will be if they are not given relief by the court and they continue to assert religious expression. I am.

According to the RFRA law , it is the religious belief of the employer that matters

For the purposes of the lawsuit , the employer would be Sister Mary Holywater , President, St. John's Hospital, or something similar, I imagine. They pay lawyers to figure that stuff out.

The substantial burden on the Church for exercising it's religious beliefs , unless it is granted relief from the mandate, is not rhetorical, it is draconian. They would face millions of dollars in punitive fines, per year, for not providing coverage, or would have to go out of business.

Except for the fact that, as you've already pointed out, the church is already voluntarily doing the precise action contained in the mandate. It's impossible to argue that an action is oppressively in violation of core principles of a religious body when said body is already doing that action. The mandate just makes it nationwide. Even if the Catholic institutions providing contraceptive insurance were coerced -- a possibility you threw out with absolutely no basis, mind you -- the Catholic leadership is allowing it and has not brought a legal challenge. That alone is enough to toss out any notion of it being a violation of their religious freedoms.

but you are not showing what their burden will be if they are not given relief by the court and they continue to assert religious expression. I am.

They're already voluntarily choosing not to assert their religious expression. In doing so in a limited capacity, they have forfeited their rights to assert legal authority against that so-called burden on a larger scale. It would be thrown out by any competent judge immediately.

I'd say that between the myriad of reasons why the mandate isn't a burden, your own admission that various Catholic institutions already do it is the most damaging. So congratulations on beating the crap out of your own argument.

Either someone is playing games with this thread, or my computer is acting up badly. I wrote a long reply to your last post that has disappeared.

Not gonna redo it.

Read The 6 articles, they answer all your objections, rather conviincingly.

This is the church's choice

Either you comply with the mandate and bear the burden of going against your religious conscience and violate the very religious principle that you teach,

or you defy the mandate and bear the significant burden of millions of dollars in fines, or dissolution.

Without relief from the court , their choice is

either ruin your enterprises through fines or dissolution

OR

violate your constitutionally protected religious principles

In this scenario you have taken away the free exercise of religion. This is how Whelan explains it, and I see absolutely no reason to question him about it.

Your answer is to tell the church "get over it".

If you were a party to a case like this, I could see someone winning punitive damages against you. Well, maybe that's the People's Court, but you get the picture.

There is NO DOUBT the church would win on the 'substantial burden' aspect. NONE. Read the article.

The 3.b section of the act as it applies to this case is where the argument will come in. Is there a compelling government interest in denying claim to this religious expression? and is the mandate the least restrictive means of enforcing that compelling interest?

I think Whelan explained it well, but I'm sure HHS will have a decent lawyer of their own.

(My computer is messed up. Gotta go see what's wrong.)

Sorry to hear about your computer.

Either you comply with the mandate and bear the burden of going against your religious conscience and violate the very religious principle that you teach, or you defy the mandate and bear the significant burden of millions of dollars in fines, or dissolution.

The church has already shown that going against its religious conscience isn't an issue. It's voluntarily doing that already. Therefore, they cannot reasonably argue that the government is unreasonably forcing them to do it. They're already doing it on their own.

Without relief from the court , their choice is either ruin your enterprises through fines or dissolution OR violate your constitutionally protected religious principles

Or in other words, continue to do what they've already been doing.

Your answer is to tell the church "get over it".

No, my answer is to tell the church that it has established a precedent of allowing this, so it has not set up a reasonable argument to claim that it holds the values so dearly that violating them would be a crisis of conscience.

Basically, by not following the principle when left to their own devices, they can't argue it in court. It would be like if a general law ruled that Jewish men have to share bus seats with menstruating women. Sure, it's technically against their rules; but it's a rule that no one actually follows, and that Jewish leadership has already dismissed. Raising any objection to it being formally put into law would be ludicrous.

This is where we split. You keep taking the "deep-held principles" point as a given, and arguing that they have to violate them or face a financial burden. I'm saying that the financial burden point is moot, because they've already violated their so-called principles on their own. That negates any claim they have to argue that they have a moral or religious obligation to those principles.

There is NO DOUBT the church would win on the 'substantial burden' aspect. NONE.

Maybe. But my point is that the substantial burden is the second step in the case you're building, when the first step is already compromised.

What are you talking about? If you are referring to the fact that a few , and I don't even know how many, institutions have health insurance policies for the employees that offer birth control coverage, I doubt very much that would be a factor. There are thousands of churches, parish schools, high schools, universities, hospitals and charities over seen by the Catholic Church. I saw an article that named a handful of them as offering birth control, and for all I know that may be being taking grief from the higher ups in the Church over it. Or they may be doing what they have to do to survive if they are in a state where they can't swing an exemption.

But I don't think that would matter anyway. It sounds to me from reading the NRO series that anyone who wants to say with a straight face that they don't want to pay for contraceptives due to religious beliefs, they can probably win in court. The fines are prohibitive, so the substantial burden is met right off the bat. 90% of the nation's health insurance policies cover contraceptives, so the Sec 3.b question of the 'least restrictive compelling interest' exception would not apply. All you have to do is convince the court that your religious expression is sincere. The Catholic Church doesn't have any problem doing that, but some other people might look odd making that claim.

I think the reason Whelan said the mandate is "clearly unlawful" is because it is not a difficult conclusion to come to.

If you are referring to the fact that a few , and I don't even know how many, institutions have health insurance policies for the employees that offer birth control coverage, I doubt very much that would be a factor.

It doesn't matter how many are involved. The Catholic leadership is allowing it. They've established a precedent and made their bed. They can't cry now about having to lay in it.

Though, for what it's worth, the Catholic leadership seems generally quiet about this. Most of the ruckus is coming from the (mostly protestent) religious right, in a pretty transparent attempt to make hay in an election year.

It sounds to me from reading the NRO series that anyone who wants to say with a straight face that they don't want to pay for contraceptives due to religious beliefs, they can probably win in court.

So if a single person in the entirety of the Catholic church disagrees, the entire law is unconstitutional and needs to be stricken? You realize that sets up a precedent that, to put it mildly, is bat@!$%# insane and impractical, right? It means that any law the government passes, ever, throughout the entire existence of the United States, someone could claim they have a problem with it due to their faith.

I'm sorry, but no. It needs to be argued on behalf of the centralized leadership, and the Catholic leadership has already allowed it. That's the thing about principles. If you don't apply them consistently, you can't legally claim to be applying them at all.

All you have to do is convince the court that your religious expression is sincere. The Catholic Church doesn't have any problem doing that

If I'm a judge and a church is telling me they have a sincere moral objection to an action that they already freely allow, I'm going to dismiss the case while trying to stifle my laughter. It's a ridiculous argument to make, and your continued persistence is straining credulity.

in a pretty transparent attempt to make hay in an election year.

One of the biggest pointers to this is that this regulation came out last August - a full 6 months ago. And suddenly it's now an issue?

Steve Watts, you kept up a fairly sensible argument for most of the day, but you have gone way off the track the last few posts. The number of Catholic institutions that may or may not have birth control in their health plans will be irrelevant in any court case. You are making an argument in your imagination, not in the real world.

I saw Ed Whelan on CSpan ( or a video of it) and he says quite clearly that any employer could make this claim of religious exercise. Anyone. A guy called up and says, "I have a small business. I am a Catholic and do not want to pay for contraceptives through health insurance that my employees receive. What can I do?" Whelan told him that his position is exactly the same as that of the Catholic Church.

The point is, if Whelan is correct, the fact that a few Catholic organizations may offer birth control now will be irrelevant in any court case. I am surprised you don't understand that.

Amazing we went from SCOTUS says to the opinion of a law clerk for a very conservative Catholic judge. His opinion is meaningless.

The number of Catholic institutions that may or may not have birth control in their health plans will be irrelevant in any court case.

If the case is being brought on behalf of the Catholic church itself, it would be entirely relevant. That's what we've been talking about, remember? The entire discussion was about institutions owned and operated by the Catholic church -- hospitals, schools, and charities. Those are institutions owned by the church itself, which makes the church's policy precedent a pretty big elephant in the room if they choose to press the issue.

You've decided to change the goalposts to individual business-owners who happen to be Catholic. I'll deal with the problems in that argument in a moment, but for now I thought it was worth noting that you seem to have forgotten what was being discussed. Try to keep up, man.

I saw Ed Whelan on CSpan ( or a video of it) and he says quite clearly that any employer could make this claim of religious exercise.

Seriously, another appeal to authority fallacy?

A guy called up and says, "I have a small business. I am a Catholic and do not want to pay for contraceptives through health insurance that my employees receive. What can I do?"

As I've already pointed out, if any one person can single-handedly render any law unconstitutional by claiming it conflicts with his or her religion, you have effectively rendered legislation impossible. There would be no point to government. No laws could get passed without some yahoo claiming religious entitlement.

So this fictitious guy could bring up an individual case if he wanted, but the defense and judge would look at the wildly inconsistent official position of the Catholic church, and summarily dismiss him.

The point is, if Whelan is correct, the fact that a few Catholic organizations may offer birth control now will be irrelevant in any court case. I am surprised you don't understand that.

I understand the position just fine. That doesn't make it correct. If he were correct about the ability for a small business owner to strike down the law by claiming religious bias, then anyone could strike down any government action, forever. Gay marriage gets passed? It's against my religion to live in a country with gay marriage. We go to war against Iran? It's against my religion to go to war against Iran. We elect Obama to a second term? It's against my religion to see Obama serve a second term.

We can't just go by what any random person says is their belief structure. We have to go by the official position of the church. And since the official position of the church on this subject is wildly inconsistent, and a subject of debate even among its own members, it can't be properly claimed as an unfair compromise of their principles.

You have to make a sincere, logical, accepted argument.

Your religion is against the war in Iraq? What religion?

MYonism.

Let's see the doctrines or teachings of MYonism. How long as MYonism existed? How many followers are there? You and your wife and kids and the people on your bowling team? Okay. Goodbye.

-

You can't just make up a religious objection, you have to document it and show it through a historical accepted course. Or a court will simply say "You are making it up. Get out of here."

Amazing we went from SCOTUS says to the opinion of a law clerk for a very conservative Catholic judge. His opinion is meaningless.

His opinion is a lot more meaningful than mine or yours is.

Your religion is against the war in Iraq? What religion?

Every pacifist religion that exists, including Buddhism, Pentecostal Christianity, and some sects of Hasidic Judaism -- just to name some prominent examples. If you're claiming that a member of the Catholic church could single-handedly strike down this law by raising a personal objection, then you also have to concede that a Buddhist could single-handedly stop any U.S. military action through similar means.

Sound ridiculous? Exactly.

You can't just make up a religious objection, you have to document it and show it through a historical accepted course. Or a court will simply say "You are making it up. Get out of here."

Which is exactly why the Catholic church's (inconsistent) precedent would be brought into court.

Thanks for proving my point, Sam.

Sambonner: You are incorrect. As a matter of law, his opinion is the same as yours or mine.

I notice you totally avoided the subject of Muslims and interest payments. What about Christian Scientists who do not believe in medical care? Should they be forced to have medicare charges deducted from their salary and should they be allowed to let their children die because the parents do not want to take him/her to a hospital where proper care be give. Is it only FCC rights and beliefs that are to be honored.

I wrote a long reply to your last post that has disappeared.

Not gonna redo it.

Hmmm, maybe there is a god after all.

Turns out, on a federal basis, you can't force ANYONE* to pay for something they say is against their religion

True and it is a good thing this mandate doesn't force any employee to pay for anything, let alone against their religious beliefs. It does require all businesses to offer the option, it does not force any employee to choose the option. So how does this violate the religious freedom of the individual? And since the Church is not paying for the coverage, it is not forcing the Church to purchase anything that contradicts its religious beliefs either.

If it were the Chicago Cubs and the owner of the team said 'because of my religious beliefs I do not want to provide health insurance that encompasses contraception', and he could show to the court's satisfaction that he was in fact exercising religious belief,

Fine. Then pony up the equivalent in wages for this breach of the work contract. Health coverage is part of the agreed upon contract as much as the hourly wage is. It is the employees money and not the employers money. So you are advocating for theft by the employer based on religious beliefs.

Gee I wonder why religions get a bad reputation. They are above the law in sex abuse and theft and taxes for political activity.

Well, I guess we can't expect you to enforce fairness on your seed.

By the way sam, you might want to take a gander over there as someone is at it again.

Exactly WHY are molestations by priests off topic? The catholic church is stating they are against this policy because of religious beliefs. Seems to me the church wants to pick and choose which beliefs they want to enforce

Child molestation may seem to be off topic to you, but to many, it is another example of the church failing to uphold their Christian morality or beliefs and their willful disregard for the laws in this country.

the church failing to uphold their Christian morality or beliefs and their willful disregard of the laws in this country.

This isn't relevant either. The issue is FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Are you suggesting that if a religious group doesn't behave the way you like you would remove their constitutional protections?

The church has repeatedly broken the laws of this country. They place their religious beliefs above other Americans' Constitutional Rights and hide behind their bible as an excuse for their actions. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

Hypocrisy when you look at it in the light of doing what is best for the masses .

This isn't relevant either. The issue is FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Are you suggesting that if a religious group doesn't behave the way you like you would remove their constitutional protections?

Telling the Catholic church that they have to follow the same laws as every other business is not mitigating their Constitutional protection. The Church is asking for government sanctioned special privileges to NOT afford their non-Catholic employees the same insurance benefits as other businesses.

Nobody in the is forcing a Catholic person to use contraception or sterilization, all the government is insisting is that just because someone, regardless of their religion, is employed by the Catholic church, they will get the same legal protection as anyone else.

Basically the Catholic church is trying to DEMAND that the government enforce THEIR laws...

and that is wrong no matter what angle you look at it.

sambonner I'm am saying if a religious organization is complicit in moving child rapist around from parish to parish to continue feeding on the least among us Yes they forfiet any constitutional rights to exist as an organization (which loves and protects our children) and everyone involved is put in jail. Tell us, don't you feel the same way?

Are you talking about the nation's public school system?

Sam, is the Catholic Church infallible? Has it ever been wrong? Could it be wrong on contraception? Is it impossible that its position could ever change?

It is not a matter of right or wrong. Is anyone on this site ( or more than a few) ever going to understand that?

sambonner: It is a little strange that you would wish to moderate another members column. I can understand that you do not agree with her opinion, and that is your right. I started to read your article on this subject, and did not get very far into it because I felt you were not being fair in the moderation of the subject, but did not whine or cry about the way you were doing it, I simply left. The proper way to deal with people we disagree with, from the perspective of the right, is to silence their views and words, or at least it looks like that from the way many of them moderate their articles. I, for one, would rather see what the other person has to say and make up my own mind, instead of having someone else do that for me! Censorship very seldom has the effect that you hope for!

Moderators are -supposed- to delete CoH violations....even if others like to read them. Secondarily, the vine is not a democracy and "censorship" ideals only apply to -wrongly- deleted material, not deletion of COH/UA violations. Something, I might add, we all agreed to in order to have an account here. Those moderators who do not properly moderate their articles/seeds by encouraging, not deleting, or participation in CoH violations are themselves in violation of the CoH and subject to possible action against them by the NV staff if reported. I would also add that every viner is -supposed- to report any and all actual violations (not just "I don't like it" or "I'm offended") they come across be they friend or foe.

There is a wonderful series done on each aspect of the CoH done by one of the original founders of the vine which very succinctly addresses assumptions like yours. I have clipped the entire series to my column so feel free to educate yourself on the PROPER form of moderation.

Discussing the Catholic priest abuse scandal(s) isn't a COH violation. Sam could rightly call it off-topic and delete those comments from his own column, but each author has the freedom to determine how broad they'll allow comments to be. Sam might not allow tangentially-related comments about sex scandals, but Jade does. Each are moderating correctly, according to the rules they've set.

And for what it's worth, yes, it is fairly rude to tell someone else how to moderate their column.

this isn't your seed, rachel; you just can't have comments that you don't like deleted. Just because you use deletion as censorship doesn't mean that everyone else has to.

Can the Catholic church go back to defending it's pedophile priests and leave the roll of health care to the people that know what they are talking about ?

Ahhhh, what would the vine be without it's daily dose of anti-phonyChristian articles

There, fixed it for you rachel. There are a few people who actually try to follow and live the teachings (at least as recorded in the gospels) of Jesus. The vast majority of people who claim to be christian don't even come close to doing so. That's who're getting the well deserved "dose."

mrsrachelm: Thanks for pointing me toward the series recently about the COH. You wrongly assumed that I had not read it, but indeed I have. One of the things that was brought out was the responsibilities of the seeder, to delete posts that were grossly off topic. I can not recall anywhere in that series or even the COH that provides for someone else to moderate a seed or article other than the original poster, if I missed that part, please enlighten me as to where it is to be found in the COH! I have pretty much already stopped reading your seeds due to the way you moderate, if a person does not agree with your point of view you too frequently delete their words. Yes you are right NewsVine is not a democracy, however I have yet to find in the COH anything that says you must delete dissenting opinions. Thank you for taking your time to lecture me about your opinions on how to moderate a post, I will try to remember your views in the future! Have a great day!