Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama

[SB Shock]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/...trol-payments/

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.

As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.

Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.
“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.

[JJClamdip]

I wonder why they don't get nearly this upset when they find out about the priest abuse of young children.

I guess you have to have your priorities in order.

[Maggie]

I wonder why they don't get nearly this upset when they find out about the priest abuse of young children.

I guess you have to have your priorities in order.

This post is ignorant (and I am being "nice").

[JJClamdip]

This post is ignorant (and I am being "nice").

That is fine don't really care what you think, the church cares about the unborn but not very much about the abuse and has hidden it for years.

Again it's all about priorities.

But what do you expect when they have a Nazi as a leader?

[shocktheheart]

That is fine don't really care what you think, the church cares about the unborn but not very much about the abuse and has hidden it for years.

Again it's all about priorities.

But what do you expect when they have a Nazi as a leader?

Nazi....really? Just because he is a German doesn't make him a Nazi.

[JJClamdip]

Nazi....really? Just because he is a German doesn't make him a Nazi.

Yea Nazi is a little strong I admit, though he did belong to the Hitler Youth.

[Shocker85]

That is fine don't really care what you think, the church cares about the unborn but not very much about the abuse and has hidden it for years.

Again it's all about priorities.

But what do you expect when they have a Nazi as a leader?

Good, then you won't care what I think, either. I think you're a pr*ck. It seems like anything you post on here is inflamatory and I would prefer if you would STFU. You've stepped over the line of decorum now.

--'85.

[JJClamdip]

Good, then you won't care what I think, either. I think you're a pr*ck. It seems like anything you post on here is inflamatory and I would prefer if you would STFU. You've stepped over the line of decorum now.

--'85.

You seem to have your panties in a bunch, does the 85 refer to your age or IQ?

[Maggie]

You seem to have your panties in a bunch, does the 85 refer to your age or IQ?

They are right to stand up. Why object?

I think what I originally wrote has come to pass.

[JJClamdip]

They are right to stand up. Why object?

I think what I originally wrote has come to pass.

Of course they have the right to object and they should when it goes against their teachings.

I was just pointing out other problems that they face where they don't seem to get too upset.

[Wu du Nord]

1) It's possible that the Catholic Church could win this in court, but I'm not sure that challenging it makes sense. IIRC there is some precedent for 'religious organizations' being exempt from employment laws, although I'm not sure how this fits in the puzzle.

2) Unlike Evangelical Christians the rank and file of the Catholic Church tends to be less crazy, outraged, and conspiracy driven than their leadership. That's my experience, at least.

3) The 70million Catholics sounds fishy to me. What are those? Are those people faithful service attendees? Holiday visitors? The number of people who have been confirmed by the church? Surely, a) they can't all be of voting age, b) they aren't a lockstep voting block and c) any voters tuned into the debate at this level were already anti-Obama voters, so no change. Tempest in a teacup, I say.

4) Birth-control pills (and the morning after pill) are better than abortions. Aren't they?

5) Raping children is wrong. Can't believe anyone is arguing about that. Sorry but it is an issue in this discussion. The character, culture and credibility of the the Catholic Church do effect how people view the organization. This is essentially a Public Relations campaign, and the church has a big black-eye that it has done an absolutely horrible job treating. Corrupt organizations who hurt children, cover it up and routinely put more children at risk simply do not and cannot get first dibs on refereeing moral issues of the day. They can certainly try, but don't act shocked when they are called out for the hypocrites they are. I'm sure that convicted child molesters don't enjoy walking around the neighborhood to inform everyone of their crimes.

6) Abstinence and sex only for procreation are not realistic goals for most people. I don't see how pretending otherwise is particularly helpful. The Catholic Church has changed its opinion on many issues. This one is getting silly.

7) Here's someone's research on the general subject.

[pinstripers]

The Catholic Church probably should not pizz off Obama when he is looking for more tax dollars.

[Maggie]

This issue should not go away, it should be front and center. This issue, forced on the public by the Obama Administration by the way, is not about contriception or abortion or the disgusting "transgressions" (to put it charitably) of representatives of the the Church of Rome, etc. It is about power. Every American should be appalled by what the HHS is doing - regardless of their religious affiliation, if any. In any event, what follows is an interesting article:

Mandates and Bad Law

These necessary, essential, and universally recognized policy judgments of religious institutions are something that reasonable legislators should always take cognizance of, for the common good includes prominently not just the goods and services provided by such institutions, but the good of having such institutions, of enabling religious individuals to work together to constitute a religious identity and fulfill a religious mission. My point here is not that the pluralism that results from the existence of such institutions is good, although it often is; rather, it is that the forms of community life in service of human goods that these institutions make possible are themselves goods critical to human well-being; respect for such institutions is thus a critical part of a nation’s moral obligations.
In addition to its neglect of the burdens on conscience the mandate would create, the Obama administration seems entirely to have overlooked this essential part of the common good. It rather chose to believe not only that some spurious services are part of the common good, but also that the common good includes only the provision of such services. That mistake is a threat not only to religious liberty, but to the liberty of citizens more broadly, for it treats human well-being entirely as a matter of what can be provided to them, and not as a matter of what must be done by them, working together with their fellow citizens for their fulfillment in community. Were the central task of government to be seen as that of aiding citizens in their own self-constitution, oriented toward real human goods including the good of religion, mandates such as the one here under consideration would be seen for the unjust impositions they are.

And the HHS ruling violates the First Amendment.

[Maggie]

Can someone defend this mandate?

For the record, as if it really matters, I am not a Catholic (although I has baptized as one for my grandfathers sake) – I was raised in the Presbyterian Church (Eastminister to be exact). But have never gone to church regularly for 25 plus years, for many reasons.

But can someone defend this mandate?

I don't think anyone can.