This has nothing to do with religion. The Catholic Bishops have asked the republicans for help on numerous issues in the past, unemployment, welfare, hunger, etc, and the republicans didn’t give them the time of day. But since this is related to health care reform, now they have to take a stand. And now the republicans want the federal government to enforce the beliefs and practices of religion over others. And just to cut some people off in advance, the “taxpayers” aren’t paying for this. 28 states have had this rule in effect for years. And plenty of Catholic hospitals have offered health care with birth control coverage to employees for years. Why hasn’t this become an issue before? Because it wasn’t a part of health care reform!
“And plenty of Catholic hospitals have offered health care with birth control coverage to employees for years. Why hasn’t this become an issue before? Because it wasn’t a part of health care reform!”
————————-
And plenty will continue to offer it. The fight is not whether or not those that currently offer it will be able to continue. The fight is whether or not those that DO NOT offer it will be forced to do so. This is not about the government enforcing religious beliefs, it’s about government protecting the right of religions to freely practice according to the dictates of their consciences, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“The fight is not whether or not those that currently offer it will be able to continue. The fight is whether or not those that DO NOT offer it will be forced to do so.” Uh, no it’s not. The fight is whether or not Federal law dictates that ALL health insurance has to offer birth control. This only became an issue when it became a part of…HEALTH CARE REFORM.
If federal law mandates that employees of Catholic-related organizations are not allowed the same benefits as employees of Baptist related organizations, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, that would precisely be the government enforcing religious beliefs.
First amendment:”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Our government does not PROTECT religion in any way shape or form.
Of course it only became an issue when it became a part of health care reform! The issue came to be because of health care reform. Before the reform package was added, there was no thought to mandating this coverage for anyone!
I think you miss the point further: federal law does not mandate that employees are not allowed coverage. The regulation (it’s not really a law), if it contained an exemption, would give the hospital/care provider/social service agency, etc, the option of not providing the coverage. It would not require that a Catholic organization not offer it.
Besides, you further make my point by citing the “free exercise” clause: the government may not interfere with the free exercise of religion. What the Church is arguing is that the government IS interfering with free exercise by forcing a practice in violation of its beliefs. It could not be more plain.
It is NOT forcing them. They can give up federal funding and then they can do whatever they want.
March 6, 2012 at 8:59 am
ComradeAnon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That argument is flawed. The government is NOT interfering with free exercise of religion. They are not prohibiting in any way shape or form the Catholic’s church belief that birth control is a sin. (That is probably not the best wording.) The Church can continue to believe whatever they want, to exercise their religion. The Church can’t prohibit the use of birth control. They can’t stop the sale of it. Their exercise is their belief that it shouldn’t be used. Reform does not change that.
March 6, 2012 at 11:17 am
Some point of view says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
ComradeAnon, the church, in relation to this argument, never intended to ban the sale, prohibit the use, etc of birth control. They don’t want to pay for it. They have a moral objection to it so they don’t want to pay for it. It is nothing more. You are free to work for them or not if you wish. If you are unsatisfied with your pay/benefits package, work somewhere else. Forcing them to pay for coverage even though it is against their religious beliefs is forcing YOUR religion on them.
OPOV, what does federal funding have to do with a federal mandate on health care? That doesn’t even make sense. Whether they take it or not, the reform package requires this as part of health care.
March 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm
TxLady says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wasn’t this same post posted last week or the week before?
No quarrel there; no one’s going to force Catholics to violate their doctrine. No one is making anyone use birth control. But Catholics are also Americans, and if an individual Catholic worker wants coverage, they should have access to it — just like any other American citizen. Under the new plan, they will. They can go directly to the insurer, and the religious institution is off the hook.
Freedom of religion? How about freedom FROM religion – me from yours, you from mine. Allow each other to exist and don’t try to build a SuparPAC to get your point across.
We don’t need to be living in a land of freedom if it’s also a land of polemics.
Would you prefer to live in a land where honest and open debate is stifled, and intellectual laziness is valued? Part of what makes this country great is the freedom to engage in informed debate in the public arena. I don’t want wishy-washy politics practiced by wishy-washy people.
Honest and open debate is healthy. What isn’t healthy is an unbridgeable divide between Pro and Con. Too many issues wind up being undecided in the court of open opinion, following the platform of one speaker or another.
While France is different (Salic Law, etc), was it proper for them to outlaw the wearing of burkhas by Muslim women in public if worn as a symbol of their faith? Was it done for ‘anti-terrorist’ purposes, or enacted by a government afraid of being able to control the one growing segment of their population? Will the US ever try to get that one replicated?
Is there a value in being a moderate? Ask Olympia Snow, who found she was spending too much time in rancorous debate with the otehr side of the aisle, as well as within her own side. Does John Behner set a line in the sand simply to be an obstructionist, or does he value discussion – only when it goes the majority’s way?
Is there a value in being the global police force whenever the UN doesn’t take action? Are we back to an ineffective League of Nations, which could only decide that it couldn’t make a decision or enforce it?
There are few easy answers, and fewer easy debates.
Yes. Support Viagra but not birth control. No birth control, but don’t provide financial support to families. 80% of our “membership” do not adhere to our “teachings” but we don’t care. Let me tell my “lemings” how to vote, but don’t take away my tax status..
Remember, the constitution limits the federal govenment, not state govenments. This is the first time that the federal government has tried to dictate that individual companies and/or insurers provide benefits that violate their religious beliefs.
This goes beyond catholic organizations, down to individual liberty. The mandate is that every health plan, employer and individual, cover “contraception” including abortion enducing drugs. There is no way for someone who objects to abortion to have insurance that does not cover abortion. What gives the federal government that authority?
Actually, Catnwell v Connecticut incorporated free exercise of religion against states. So, yes… the free exercise clause (and the whole Bill of Rights, in fact) does apply to states as well as the federal government.
That said, yours is an excellent point about individual liberty.
The rule that these Catholic institutions provide contraception in their insurance plans applies only to those institutions that receive federal funding. So no one is forcing anyone to violate their First Amendment rights. If they don’t want to provide contraception, that’s fine. They won’t get federal dollars, but that’s a choice they have to make for themselves.
The Church wants to have its cake eat it too.
I’m not anti-Church, I attend mass almost every Sunday. But the hypcrisy is astounding. As ComradeAnon says, this practice has been going on for years and they never said a word about it. They also seem to have no issue with paying for Viagra. The Church needs to get its own house in order.
“There is no way for someone who objects to abortion to have insurance that does not cover abortion.” False. Not all health plans cover abortion or birth control.
“What gives the federal government that authority?” The Federal Government is not making anyone use birth control. All they are saying is, IF YOU WORK FOR A RELIGION-RELATED ORGANIZATION, you can get health care that offers birth control. And even if that religion opposes the use of birth control (even though almost all members of that religion use or have used birth control), the religion itself does not have to offer it or pay for it. The employee can get it by going directly to the insurer.
So if you’re a vegetarian and the government says everyone must buy meat, that doesn’t violate your belief because they’re not forcing you to eat the meat?
The free exercise of religion is not simply the freedom to believe something, it is the freedom to put that belief into practice.
You are vegetarian & the government says that you must offer to SELL meat to those who shop with you. You don’t make them eat the meat, you don’t have to eat the meat, but you must make meat available to those who what it.
No, the insured is a purchaser, not a seller. If the organization is providing the insurance, that orgnaization is paying for the benefits that are available (whether they’re used or not). Contrary to the Obama veiw of insurance, nothing is free. The money the insurer pays in claims comes directly from the money they collect in premiums. If they have to pay for “free” benefits, premiums will increase.
But even with your analogy, the organization is being forced to make available something they find objectionable. This is a violation of their free exercise.
March 5, 2012 at 4:03 pm
The Other Point of View says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Let’s put the question a different way. Do you agree that the federal givernment should have a say in how it spends its money? Or do you think that the government should be forced to pay money with no strings attached?
That is what this is all about. These institutions receive federal funds. The government is saying, “if you want to continue to receive funds, follow these rules.”
The government should not be forced to spend tax dollars without having the power to say how the money is spent.
I didn’t see where the regulation only applied to institutions receiving federal funds. This regulation applies to all health plans – public, private, institutional, individual. This is the govenment telling me, my employer and anyone else who buys health insurance how to spend OUR money.
P.S. the govenment has no money that it didn’t first take from me and you.
NO, THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE TELLING ANY FREE ENTERPRISE HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS OR WHAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE TO ANYONE. EVER. PERIOD. THAT IS CALLED COMMUNISM – YOU KNOW, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS BUSINESS? AND FORCES PEOPLE TO BUY THINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY SHOULD?
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
page 107 Obamacare
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”, “risk-taking”, and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
I don’t know about all of you, but this makes my stomach turn. Are we certain that Obama himself in not Muslim? He sure defends his old religion more than Christianity. They are “exempt” and the rest of us are not? We are forced to buy insurance or pay a fine. However, the Muslims are exempt. In my opinion, Obama is a very dangerous man. Another 4 years of this man in office and no telling what “laws” he might put in place because face it, he won’t care! He’ll finish he second and do what ever the blazes he wants to because he won’t have to care. He’ll be gone and we’ll be stuck with more Obamanations. His loyalty to Muslims is very scary. His father is Muslim – enough said.
Dude. Who gives a rip what the religion of our president is? Christian exremeist are on the same path as sharia law. Don’t you get it? Women are chattel, no education, no birth contol, absolute adherence to bibilical (koran) law. Why can’t you see this?
Stop this secular madness. The absolute lack of civility between humans is the single largest cause to the degredation of society…not healthcare, not gay marriage, not taxes. Polemic attitudes will destroy society faster than any law….
This is a very telling lecture. It hits at the root of what is happening in American Universities, and what is happening to our culture. This fight is as real and costly as any combat this nation has been through in the past. The battlefield is non-conventional, but so are the methods of our enemies. Please take the time to listen. I’m sure you will ask as I did, can this possibly be true?
Pop this link into your browser and listen up. Brigitte Gabriel was born in Lebanon and she is a Christian. Lebanon was a beautiful paradise and a huge tourist attraction before it was over run by Muslims. You need to wise up dude. The Muslim faith/culture is being taught in our grammar schools, yeah, that’s right. IF Baptists, Catholics or any other Christina denomination were taught in any PUBLIC grammar school the ACLU would be screaming bloody murder. Does Fort Hood ring a bell? We have “home grown” terrorist IN our country who are plotting against us. Open your eyes CalDude.
Well CalDue, you should! Pop the link below into your browser and educate yourself. The Muslim faith is being taught in our grammar schools and that should be an eye opener. IF any other Christian faith were being taught the ACLU would be up in arms. So, why aren’t they? You do realize that we have “home grown” terrorists in our country? Does Fort Hood ring a bell to you? Women are no more cattle then me are jackasses. After you view the video by Brigitte Gabriel, who in fact is a Christian and was raised in Lebanon when it was a beautiful paradise to visit before the Muslims took it over, let me know what your thoughts are. Muslims are exempt from Obamacare? That’s a HUGE red flag for me.
I may go a bit overboard with my sarcasm and at times hit below the belt to prove a point; however I would never consider censoring the opinions of anyone here on this message board. My last comment was relatively innocuous and amazingly it received 27 dislikes in under an hour. Ironically, all of TOPOV’s comments went from hidden due to low rating to visible again. I do not need to accuse anyone, however I think this proves an important point about the difference between liberals and the rest of America. I think most of us would not resort to “rigging the ballot box” because we believe too strongly in the values this country was founded on like individual freedom and the right to the pursue happiness and success.
I really feel sorry for those who despise the constitution and what it stands for, and I truly fear for the future of our nation knowing people like you are out there.
Dear ijs – don’t worry. Some people will never get it. And the rest will think that “polemic” is a compound word for an epidemic in Poland. Maybe they’re the same ones who think Romney’s first name is Mittens. Or that Obama was born on Pluto before it lost it’s place as the last planet in our solar system (IS there life out there??).
There is a place for sarcasm. Trust me, I live there. Company is welcome.
Reading through this message board has been exhausting to say the least. Look how far off topic some of these messages go… Why is that? because were talking about religion and everyone is bound to freak out when their world view is not shared. Have some tolerance people. We talk about how horrible all these ideas and people are, but look at this message board. Everyone overreacting and fueling fires. People claim to want “open discussion” and fair debate and so forth. Not one person truly offers that. Instead they start screaming and crying like a bunch of children when they don’t hear their own views being supported. Boo hoo.
You are attempting a false comparison. Abortion and use of contraceptives (be they employed by a woman OR a man) run counter to the teachings of the Catholic church, but sexual relations between a husband and wife do not. Quite to the contrary, the Lord commands people to be fruitful and multiply.
Not working for a Catholic institution, I do not know whether the health insurance provided by such an employer covers Viagra, but the government should not be able to compel them or any other employer to provide such coverage.
Why is it that when we are trying to enhance the lives of ALL Americans, one church or another decides THEIR religious freedoms are challenged, but when that same church pays millions of dollars to keep secular rights from being provided, they use their tax-free status to say they can do that? Keep your tax-free status OR keep your finances out of my civil rights.
How is the Catholic church “keep[ing] secular rights from being provided”? You want contraceptive coverage in your health insurance plan, you go to work for an employer that offers it. Or better yet, you go into the market place and buy such a plan. Membership in the Catholic church or employment by a Catholic organization is entirely voluntary.
This has nothing to do with religion. The Catholic Bishops have asked the republicans for help on numerous issues in the past, unemployment, welfare, hunger, etc, and the republicans didn’t give them the time of day. But since this is related to health care reform, now they have to take a stand. And now the republicans want the federal government to enforce the beliefs and practices of religion over others. And just to cut some people off in advance, the “taxpayers” aren’t paying for this. 28 states have had this rule in effect for years. And plenty of Catholic hospitals have offered health care with birth control coverage to employees for years. Why hasn’t this become an issue before? Because it wasn’t a part of health care reform!
“And plenty of Catholic hospitals have offered health care with birth control coverage to employees for years. Why hasn’t this become an issue before? Because it wasn’t a part of health care reform!”
————————-
And plenty will continue to offer it. The fight is not whether or not those that currently offer it will be able to continue. The fight is whether or not those that DO NOT offer it will be forced to do so. This is not about the government enforcing religious beliefs, it’s about government protecting the right of religions to freely practice according to the dictates of their consciences, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“The fight is not whether or not those that currently offer it will be able to continue. The fight is whether or not those that DO NOT offer it will be forced to do so.” Uh, no it’s not. The fight is whether or not Federal law dictates that ALL health insurance has to offer birth control. This only became an issue when it became a part of…HEALTH CARE REFORM.
If federal law mandates that employees of Catholic-related organizations are not allowed the same benefits as employees of Baptist related organizations, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, that would precisely be the government enforcing religious beliefs.
First amendment:”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Our government does not PROTECT religion in any way shape or form.
Of course it only became an issue when it became a part of health care reform! The issue came to be because of health care reform. Before the reform package was added, there was no thought to mandating this coverage for anyone!
I think you miss the point further: federal law does not mandate that employees are not allowed coverage. The regulation (it’s not really a law), if it contained an exemption, would give the hospital/care provider/social service agency, etc, the option of not providing the coverage. It would not require that a Catholic organization not offer it.
Besides, you further make my point by citing the “free exercise” clause: the government may not interfere with the free exercise of religion. What the Church is arguing is that the government IS interfering with free exercise by forcing a practice in violation of its beliefs. It could not be more plain.
It is NOT forcing them. They can give up federal funding and then they can do whatever they want.
That argument is flawed. The government is NOT interfering with free exercise of religion. They are not prohibiting in any way shape or form the Catholic’s church belief that birth control is a sin. (That is probably not the best wording.) The Church can continue to believe whatever they want, to exercise their religion. The Church can’t prohibit the use of birth control. They can’t stop the sale of it. Their exercise is their belief that it shouldn’t be used. Reform does not change that.
ComradeAnon, the church, in relation to this argument, never intended to ban the sale, prohibit the use, etc of birth control. They don’t want to pay for it. They have a moral objection to it so they don’t want to pay for it. It is nothing more. You are free to work for them or not if you wish. If you are unsatisfied with your pay/benefits package, work somewhere else. Forcing them to pay for coverage even though it is against their religious beliefs is forcing YOUR religion on them.
OPOV, what does federal funding have to do with a federal mandate on health care? That doesn’t even make sense. Whether they take it or not, the reform package requires this as part of health care.
Wasn’t this same post posted last week or the week before?
28 states already have this requirement. Why the fuss now? Because it’s related to health care reform.
Religious Liberty Homily.mp4
http://www.youtube.com
Please view this Homily on YouTube. You just might understand what the “fuss” is abll about.
No quarrel there; no one’s going to force Catholics to violate their doctrine. No one is making anyone use birth control. But Catholics are also Americans, and if an individual Catholic worker wants coverage, they should have access to it — just like any other American citizen. Under the new plan, they will. They can go directly to the insurer, and the religious institution is off the hook.
Not exactly. The person or entity that is paying for the insuance IS actually paying for the birth control OR abortion. End of story.
Freedom of religion? How about freedom FROM religion – me from yours, you from mine. Allow each other to exist and don’t try to build a SuparPAC to get your point across.
We don’t need to be living in a land of freedom if it’s also a land of polemics.
Would you prefer to live in a land where honest and open debate is stifled, and intellectual laziness is valued? Part of what makes this country great is the freedom to engage in informed debate in the public arena. I don’t want wishy-washy politics practiced by wishy-washy people.
Honest and open debate is healthy. What isn’t healthy is an unbridgeable divide between Pro and Con. Too many issues wind up being undecided in the court of open opinion, following the platform of one speaker or another.
While France is different (Salic Law, etc), was it proper for them to outlaw the wearing of burkhas by Muslim women in public if worn as a symbol of their faith? Was it done for ‘anti-terrorist’ purposes, or enacted by a government afraid of being able to control the one growing segment of their population? Will the US ever try to get that one replicated?
Is there a value in being a moderate? Ask Olympia Snow, who found she was spending too much time in rancorous debate with the otehr side of the aisle, as well as within her own side. Does John Behner set a line in the sand simply to be an obstructionist, or does he value discussion – only when it goes the majority’s way?
Is there a value in being the global police force whenever the UN doesn’t take action? Are we back to an ineffective League of Nations, which could only decide that it couldn’t make a decision or enforce it?
There are few easy answers, and fewer easy debates.
hypocrites, all of them….
Catholics or politicians?
Yes. Support Viagra but not birth control. No birth control, but don’t provide financial support to families. 80% of our “membership” do not adhere to our “teachings” but we don’t care. Let me tell my “lemings” how to vote, but don’t take away my tax status..
Get me elected and I will promise the world….
Hypocrites, all of them….
Remember, the constitution limits the federal govenment, not state govenments. This is the first time that the federal government has tried to dictate that individual companies and/or insurers provide benefits that violate their religious beliefs.
This goes beyond catholic organizations, down to individual liberty. The mandate is that every health plan, employer and individual, cover “contraception” including abortion enducing drugs. There is no way for someone who objects to abortion to have insurance that does not cover abortion. What gives the federal government that authority?
Actually, Catnwell v Connecticut incorporated free exercise of religion against states. So, yes… the free exercise clause (and the whole Bill of Rights, in fact) does apply to states as well as the federal government.
That said, yours is an excellent point about individual liberty.
The rule that these Catholic institutions provide contraception in their insurance plans applies only to those institutions that receive federal funding. So no one is forcing anyone to violate their First Amendment rights. If they don’t want to provide contraception, that’s fine. They won’t get federal dollars, but that’s a choice they have to make for themselves.
The Church wants to have its cake eat it too.
I’m not anti-Church, I attend mass almost every Sunday. But the hypcrisy is astounding. As ComradeAnon says, this practice has been going on for years and they never said a word about it. They also seem to have no issue with paying for Viagra. The Church needs to get its own house in order.
The use of Viagra does not violate the fundamental morality of the Church.
Right, this way it makes it easier to molest little boys
“There is no way for someone who objects to abortion to have insurance that does not cover abortion.” False. Not all health plans cover abortion or birth control.
“What gives the federal government that authority?” The Federal Government is not making anyone use birth control. All they are saying is, IF YOU WORK FOR A RELIGION-RELATED ORGANIZATION, you can get health care that offers birth control. And even if that religion opposes the use of birth control (even though almost all members of that religion use or have used birth control), the religion itself does not have to offer it or pay for it. The employee can get it by going directly to the insurer.
So if you’re a vegetarian and the government says everyone must buy meat, that doesn’t violate your belief because they’re not forcing you to eat the meat?
The free exercise of religion is not simply the freedom to believe something, it is the freedom to put that belief into practice.
No, the proper analogy would be:
You are vegetarian & the government says that you must offer to SELL meat to those who shop with you. You don’t make them eat the meat, you don’t have to eat the meat, but you must make meat available to those who what it.
No, the insured is a purchaser, not a seller. If the organization is providing the insurance, that orgnaization is paying for the benefits that are available (whether they’re used or not). Contrary to the Obama veiw of insurance, nothing is free. The money the insurer pays in claims comes directly from the money they collect in premiums. If they have to pay for “free” benefits, premiums will increase.
But even with your analogy, the organization is being forced to make available something they find objectionable. This is a violation of their free exercise.
Let’s put the question a different way. Do you agree that the federal givernment should have a say in how it spends its money? Or do you think that the government should be forced to pay money with no strings attached?
That is what this is all about. These institutions receive federal funds. The government is saying, “if you want to continue to receive funds, follow these rules.”
The government should not be forced to spend tax dollars without having the power to say how the money is spent.
I didn’t see where the regulation only applied to institutions receiving federal funds. This regulation applies to all health plans – public, private, institutional, individual. This is the govenment telling me, my employer and anyone else who buys health insurance how to spend OUR money.
P.S. the govenment has no money that it didn’t first take from me and you.
NO, THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE TELLING ANY FREE ENTERPRISE HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS OR WHAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE TO ANYONE. EVER. PERIOD. THAT IS CALLED COMMUNISM – YOU KNOW, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS BUSINESS? AND FORCES PEOPLE TO BUY THINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY SHOULD?
Federal Givernment, that’s a good one. Perhaps you are finally getting it TOPOV.
Oh I get it. Typos notwithstanding.
Most overused and trite expressions:
1. You don’t get it
2. Wake up
You can have a difference of opinion and (a) be awake and (2) get it.
So, ijs, apparently you agree that the government should have to spend money without being able to say how it is spent.
I always wanted to pretend that I went to law school.
You’re doing a good job at it.
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
page 107 Obamacare
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”, “risk-taking”, and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
I don’t know about all of you, but this makes my stomach turn. Are we certain that Obama himself in not Muslim? He sure defends his old religion more than Christianity. They are “exempt” and the rest of us are not? We are forced to buy insurance or pay a fine. However, the Muslims are exempt. In my opinion, Obama is a very dangerous man. Another 4 years of this man in office and no telling what “laws” he might put in place because face it, he won’t care! He’ll finish he second and do what ever the blazes he wants to because he won’t have to care. He’ll be gone and we’ll be stuck with more Obamanations. His loyalty to Muslims is very scary. His father is Muslim – enough said.
Dude. Who gives a rip what the religion of our president is? Christian exremeist are on the same path as sharia law. Don’t you get it? Women are chattel, no education, no birth contol, absolute adherence to bibilical (koran) law. Why can’t you see this?
Stop this secular madness. The absolute lack of civility between humans is the single largest cause to the degredation of society…not healthcare, not gay marriage, not taxes. Polemic attitudes will destroy society faster than any law….
Now that’s what I call the polemic calling the kettle black.
Hey “Dude”, YES it does matter and let me show you exactly why it does:
This is frightening, Please watch the entire video.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid949801312001?bckey=AQ%7E%7E%2cAAAACEco_Vk%7E%2c9bOat4XcfB_88ri1a3UMdKnLpH9aM8Fv&bclid=0&bctid=1271237687001
This is a very telling lecture. It hits at the root of what is happening in American Universities, and what is happening to our culture. This fight is as real and costly as any combat this nation has been through in the past. The battlefield is non-conventional, but so are the methods of our enemies. Please take the time to listen. I’m sure you will ask as I did, can this possibly be true?
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid949801312001?bckey=AQ%7E%7E%2cAAAACEco_Vk%7E%2c9bOat4XcfB_88ri1a3UMdKnLpH9aM8Fv&bclid=0&bctid=1271237687001
Pop this link into your browser and listen up. Brigitte Gabriel was born in Lebanon and she is a Christian. Lebanon was a beautiful paradise and a huge tourist attraction before it was over run by Muslims. You need to wise up dude. The Muslim faith/culture is being taught in our grammar schools, yeah, that’s right. IF Baptists, Catholics or any other Christina denomination were taught in any PUBLIC grammar school the ACLU would be screaming bloody murder. Does Fort Hood ring a bell? We have “home grown” terrorist IN our country who are plotting against us. Open your eyes CalDude.
Well CalDue, you should! Pop the link below into your browser and educate yourself. The Muslim faith is being taught in our grammar schools and that should be an eye opener. IF any other Christian faith were being taught the ACLU would be up in arms. So, why aren’t they? You do realize that we have “home grown” terrorists in our country? Does Fort Hood ring a bell to you? Women are no more cattle then me are jackasses. After you view the video by Brigitte Gabriel, who in fact is a Christian and was raised in Lebanon when it was a beautiful paradise to visit before the Muslims took it over, let me know what your thoughts are. Muslims are exempt from Obamacare? That’s a HUGE red flag for me.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid949801312001?bckey=AQ%7E%7E%2cAAAACEco_Vk%7E%2c9bOat4XcfB_88ri1a3UMdKnLpH9aM8Fv&bclid=0&bctid=1271237687001
I may go a bit overboard with my sarcasm and at times hit below the belt to prove a point; however I would never consider censoring the opinions of anyone here on this message board. My last comment was relatively innocuous and amazingly it received 27 dislikes in under an hour. Ironically, all of TOPOV’s comments went from hidden due to low rating to visible again. I do not need to accuse anyone, however I think this proves an important point about the difference between liberals and the rest of America. I think most of us would not resort to “rigging the ballot box” because we believe too strongly in the values this country was founded on like individual freedom and the right to the pursue happiness and success.
I really feel sorry for those who despise the constitution and what it stands for, and I truly fear for the future of our nation knowing people like you are out there.
Dear ijs – don’t worry. Some people will never get it. And the rest will think that “polemic” is a compound word for an epidemic in Poland. Maybe they’re the same ones who think Romney’s first name is Mittens. Or that Obama was born on Pluto before it lost it’s place as the last planet in our solar system (IS there life out there??).
There is a place for sarcasm. Trust me, I live there. Company is welcome.
Reading through this message board has been exhausting to say the least. Look how far off topic some of these messages go… Why is that? because were talking about religion and everyone is bound to freak out when their world view is not shared. Have some tolerance people. We talk about how horrible all these ideas and people are, but look at this message board. Everyone overreacting and fueling fires. People claim to want “open discussion” and fair debate and so forth. Not one person truly offers that. Instead they start screaming and crying like a bunch of children when they don’t hear their own views being supported. Boo hoo.
Just wondering, since I am not familiar. Does the health insurance offered by the Catholic employers pay for Viagra?
You are attempting a false comparison. Abortion and use of contraceptives (be they employed by a woman OR a man) run counter to the teachings of the Catholic church, but sexual relations between a husband and wife do not. Quite to the contrary, the Lord commands people to be fruitful and multiply.
Not working for a Catholic institution, I do not know whether the health insurance provided by such an employer covers Viagra, but the government should not be able to compel them or any other employer to provide such coverage.
In other words, yes.
Why is it that when we are trying to enhance the lives of ALL Americans, one church or another decides THEIR religious freedoms are challenged, but when that same church pays millions of dollars to keep secular rights from being provided, they use their tax-free status to say they can do that? Keep your tax-free status OR keep your finances out of my civil rights.
How is the Catholic church “keep[ing] secular rights from being provided”? You want contraceptive coverage in your health insurance plan, you go to work for an employer that offers it. Or better yet, you go into the market place and buy such a plan. Membership in the Catholic church or employment by a Catholic organization is entirely voluntary.