Holy War? - Obama v. Catholic Church

[TahoeHorn]

Is this latest "disagreement" a big deal? Some think it has huge political implications. Will there be a big fight? Will one side back down?

Catholics are fired up over new rules implementing Obama's health care reform law forcing Catholic universities, hospitals, and charities to provide insurance for their employees covering contraception -- even though that violates church teachings.

In an extraordinary move this past weekend, New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan and other archbishops throughout the nation had their priests read letters denouncing the Obama administration policy from the pulpit at Sunday Mass.

"Never before has the government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience," Dolan said in a web video that takes the battle online. "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights. How about letting our elected leaders know that we want religious liberty and rights of consciences restored and the administration's mandate rescinded? We can't afford to strike out on this one."

[Wulaw Horn]

I have to think Obama backs down here. No upside to him for not backing down. Lots of catholics vote for dems. This is one thing that really pisses catholics off- plus it's bad policy. Heavy handed and wrong. Obama blinks here.

IF the church is reading denouncements from the pulpit that's a big deal to them.

[SubliminalHorn]

Do they take federal funds?

[gecko]

Obama might be the smartest President this country will ever know - a point that could be debated for pages on the CR. What is not debatable if that he is surrounded by some of the biggest dumbshits to ever advise a sitting President. I'll submit this decision as exhibit A.

[Gil Bang]

Yeah lots of catholics vote dem. And lots of catholics use birth control because they know the pope's view on birth control is $#@!ing retarded.

[Escriva]

Letter was read in my diocese this morning. It's a huge deal. Biden was the emissary to the Church, and a lot of higher ups, Dolan included, now feel like they got burned. Hopefully, the USCCB et al see this as the secularist power play that it is.

This will be a big deal for blue collar ethnic Catholics in the northeast and Midwest, and potentially provides an opening with Hispanic Catholics.

[TahoeHorn]

Do they take federal funds?

I don't know. I would guess some do and some don't. In any case they have to comply with this provision of the law regardless (as I understand it).

Here's the link I forgot:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...holic-leaders/

[Escriva]

Yeah lots of catholics vote dem. And lots of catholics use birth control because they know the pope's view on birth control is $#@!ing retarded.

The mandate includes abortifacients. Most Catholics see a difference there.

[LongIslandIceSIP]

Going to church in a bit... Will report back if anything re: this is read.

[VoodooChi|d]

Now if we could just force Catholics to use contraception...

[tantric superman]

Stupid Catholics.

[Chewbacca]

Obama might be the smartest President this country will ever know

You're kidding, right? He's no intellectual.

[Publius]

Obama might be the smartest President this country will ever know

This is stupid. He doesn't hold a candle to Jefferson, Madison, or Adams.

Nothing read at St. Anne's this morning in Houston.

[LongIslandIceSIP]

Update: nothing read at St Dominic's in San Francisco.

But we did have a guest black priest do a reading for black history month.

[LonghornJudas]

Obama might be the smartest President this country will ever know - a point that could be debated for pages on the CR. What is not debatable if that he is surrounded by some of the biggest dumbshits to ever advise a sitting President. I'll submit this decision as exhibit A.

One's intelligence is also judged by the appointments/hires that they put forward. You know, the "dumbshits".

[Armybrat]

Here's the letter that was read in the Austin Dioceses last Sunday:

http://www.austindiocese.org/resources/general/4793.pdf

[Armybrat]

One's intelligence is also judged by the appointments/hires that they put forward. You know, the "dumbshits".

Yes, as we saw McCain's smarts judged by his selection of Palin.

[Michael Knight]

How about you $#@!ing hypocrites just don't buy contraceptives if you don't want them

[Anastasis]

How about you $#@!ing hypocrites just don't buy contraceptives if you don't want them

That's precisely what the Catholic church is doing in this case. In the context of this discussion they are the "buyers" and the policy is the product.

[DCLonghorn]

A letter was read at our Mass today. It was as close to fire and brimstone as I have heard in a Catholic Church. Whether realistic or not, there was discussion about bishops and priest willing to go to jail over this. This is a big deal.

[Escriva]

Our bishop and the other bishop that signed the letter both said they'd refuse to comply with this. When they say they'll "go to jail," that resonates with the folks. I hope Obama actually puts them in jail. I don't doubt that he wants to.

[TheTexasHammer]

The secularist totalitarian state cannot allow religion in any form to exist. Consider the complete and utter dismissiveness that GilBang and Tantric have for other people's viewpoints. In their minds, if you don't agree with them, you are simply stupid and the issue is not worthy of discussion.

[tantric superman]

Stupidity is kind of defense if you believe a secular government should give in to utterly moronic religious "teachings".

But this is no different than the government changing its policies because some religion teaches that it is okay to physically assault your spouse.

I like the way you moronically add "totalitarian" to the idea of the secular state.

As Knight pointed out, the Catholic church is free to kick out anyone who submits a claim for contraceptive services.

[Gil Bang]

A catholic is willing to go to jail? Usually the statute of limitations saves their sorry sandusky asses

[Anastasis]

But this is no different than the government changing its policies because some religion teaches that it is okay to physically assault your spouse.

wtf?

[tantric superman]

wtf?

You seem confused...

[Ag with kids]

Stupidity is kind of defense if you believe a secular government should give in to utterly moronic religious "teachings".

Abortion -- there is a potential criminal and secular argument regarding this.

But this is no different than the government changing its policies because some religion teaches that it is okay to physically assault your spouse.

I like the way you moronically add "totalitarian" to the idea of the secular state.

As Knight pointed out, the Catholic church is free to kick out anyone who submits a claim for contraceptive services.

The Catholic Church is upset because its members are being forced to pay for birth control for others. They don't think that's something they should be forced to do because it's against Church doctrine to support birth control or abortion.

How about you $#@!ing hypocrites just don't buy contraceptives if you don't want them

See my comment above...

For the record, I'm a deist who was raised Catholic Lite (for the slower members of Shaggy, that means Lutheran)...

[Tyler Durden]

They don't think that's something they should be forced to do because it's against Church doctrine to support birth control or abortion.

I will care when Church doctrine doesn't appear to condone child molesting.

[tantric superman]

The Catholic Church is upset because its members are being forced to pay for birth control for others. They don't think that's something they should be forced to do because it's against Church doctrine to support birth control or abortion.

Many people on this board don't like to be forced to pay for a lot of stupid $#@! -- practically all the stupid $#@! -- that they are forced to pay for through taxes and otherwise.

The point is, the church doctrine is irrelevant to the public policy. And more on point, its a $#@!ty as hell doctrine that causes nothing but pain and harm.

[fortyakers]

It's not like there are any Catholics on the supreme court, so the law should get upheld.

[TheTexasHammer]

Many people on this board don't like to be forced to pay for a lot of stupid $#@! -- practically all the stupid $#@! -- that they are forced to pay for through taxes and otherwise.

The point is, the church doctrine is irrelevant to the public policy. And more on point, its a $#@!ty as hell doctrine that causes nothing but pain and harm.

This is precisely why your beliefs are so scary.

[linux]

Only religion can make this little sense.

Are they even aware that sperm has an exiration date inside the ballsac? every man has commited genocide in the billions regardless of using condoms or not.

[tantric superman]

This is precisely why your beliefs are so scary.

Oh, nut up pussy. I just don't think public policy should be decided by making exceptions for church doctrine, especially laughable ones.

Have we verified that the Catholic Church isn't indirectly supporting sales of steak on Friday?

[Ag with kids]

Many people on this board don't like to be forced to pay for a lot of stupid $#@! -- practically all the stupid $#@! -- that they are forced to pay for through taxes and otherwise.

The point is, the church doctrine is irrelevant to the public policy. And more on point, its a $#@!ty as hell doctrine that causes nothing but pain and harm.

Most of those things aren't protected by the Constitution...the government forcing members of a religion to support something that is against their religion does violate their rights...

And I say this as someone who dislikes organized religion...it's the reason I became a deist...

[tantric superman]

Most of those things aren't protected by the Constitution...the government forcing members of a religion to support something that is against their religion does violate their rights...

Is that the rule? So the Quakers have never paid income taxes which support wars?

I need me a new religion.

[tantric superman]

Most of those things aren't protected by the Constitution...the government forcing members of a religion to support something that is against their religion does violate their rights...

I don't think so. Here is an example of what comes from outside the Constitution.

"Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to he subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United Slates who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in wsr in any form. . . the term `religious training and belief' does not include essentially politicsl, sociologicsl, or philosophicxl views, or a merely personal moral code. Any person. . . whose claim is sustained by the local board shall, if he is inducted into the xrmed forces. . . be assigned to noncombatant service. . . or shall, if he is found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service. . .perform ... civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the nxtional health, safety, or interest. . . "-Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act.

But I don't think there is an overriding right to concientlous objection to all laws.

[Ag with kids]

Is that the rule? So the Quakers have never paid income taxes which support wars?

I need me a new religion.

Is that against their religion?

Again, I don't give a $#@! about organized religion...but, it is part of the "protected class"...if you want to change it, there's a way that's described in Article 5...I'd disagree with changing it from a "liberty" standpoint, but if it got passed, I'd argue on the other side unless it was repealed...

[TheTexasHammer]

Oh, nut up pussy. I just don't think public policy should be decided by making exceptions for church doctrine, especially laughable ones.

Have we verified that the Catholic Church isn't indirectly supporting sales of steak on Friday?

I'll put you down as another one in favor of repeal of the first amendment.

And again, Tantric, you are doing nothing but reinforcing my original point.

[YoLaDu]

Whether realistic or not, there was discussion about bishops and priest willing to go to jail over this. This is a big deal.

holy $#@!, this is what they are willing to go to jail over? But buggery of children?.. well, yeah they dont want to go to jail over that.

Are bishops and priests willing to go to jail over a issue that 75% of their congregation participates in? Kind of seems like the clergy have already lost the battle. Maybe they should have threatened jail 5 decades or so, 'cause they lost the flock on this one a long time ago.

i don't really care much one way or the other, but this is hypocrits telling other hypocrits what's what. It is the silly season.

[Armybrat]

Haha - the spin here from the government apologists is kinda entertaining.

Y'all can get all outraged against the evile church, but millions of others have a legitimate complaint that their First Amendment rights are being trampled. And they are NOT all morons, in spite of what you haters like to think.

[Gil Bang]

If you could spell I would agree with you

[TheTexasHammer]

I am, once again, at a loss for the words to describe this. It is a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Ignorance, because after years and years of small government discussion, after graduating from grade school and then the Univ of Texas, Tantric acts as if he's never even heard of the founding fathers, limited government, the bill of rights, libertairianism, or small government conservatism. Knowledge is a stranger to Tantric.

Arrogance, because coupled with intellectual blindness is the unwavering belief that if only we do it his way all will be well. And it's not about persuasion, it's about compulsion via federal power. Tantric wants to compel everyone to acts according to his beliefs - everyone else is stupid.

It's Thomas Friedman dreaming that if only we could be dictators for a day (like China) we could achieve a better world, when time and again we see the ruin, the Ayn Randian dystopia that these dreams create. But never mind facts, let's make policies on hopes and dreams and cross our fingers that it will just work out swell for everyone.

[tantric superman]

I'll put you down as another one in favor of repeal of the first amendment.

Quit talking out of your ass. You need to go back to law school.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Good discussion in findlaw:

The Belief-Conduct Distinction .--While the Court has consistently affirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, protection for religiously motivated conduct has waxed and waned over the years. The Free Exercise Clause ''embraces two concepts-- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'' 189 In its first free exercise case, involving the power of government to prohibit polygamy, the Court invoked a hard distinction between the two, saying that although laws ''cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.'' 190 The rule thus propounded protected only belief, inasmuch as religiously motivated action was to be subjected to the police power of the state to the same extent as would similar action springing from other motives. The Reynolds no-protection rule was applied in a number of cases, 191 but later cases established that religiously grounded conduct is not always outside the protection of the free exercise clause. 192 Instead, the Court began to balance the secular interest asserted by the government against the claim of religious liberty asserted by the person affected; only if the governmental interest was ''compelling'' and if no alternative forms of regulation would serve that interest was the claimant required to yield. 193 Thus, while freedom to engage in religious practices was not absolute, it was entitled to considerable protection.

Recent cases evidence a narrowing of application of the compelling interest test, and a corresponding constriction on the freedom to engage in religiously motivated conduct. First, the Court purported to apply strict scrutiny, but upheld the governmental action anyhow. Next the Court held that the test is inappropriate in the contexts of military and prison discipline. 194 Then, more importantly, the Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that ''if prohibiting the exercise of religion . . . is not the object . . . but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.'' 195 Therefore, the Court concluded, the Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit a state from applying generally applicable criminal penalties to use of peyote in a religious ceremony, or from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because of religious ceremonial use of peyote. Accommodation of such religious practices must be found in ''the political process,'' the Court noted; statutory religious-practice exceptions are permissible, but not ''constitutionally required.'' 196 The result is tantamount to a return to the Reynolds belief-conduct distinction.

...The ramifications of Smith are potentially widespread. The Court has apparently returned to a belief-conduct dichotomy under which religiously motivated conduct is not entitled to special protection. Laws may not single out religiously motivated conduct for adverse treatment, Supp.13.1 but formally neutral laws of general applicability may regulate religious conduct (along with other conduct) regardless of the adverse or prohibitory effects on religious exercise. That the Court views the principle as a general one, not limited to criminal laws, seems evident from its restatement in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah: ''our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general application need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.'' Supp.14 Similar rules govern taxation. Under the Court's rulings in Smith and Swaggart, religious exemptions from most taxes are a matter of legislative grace rather than constitutional command, since most important taxes (e.g., income, property, sales and use) satisfy the criteria of formal neutrality and general applicability, and are not license fees that can be viewed as prior restraints on expression. 254 The result is equal protection, but not substantive protection, for religious exercise. 255 The Court's approach also accords less protection to religiously-based conduct than is accorded expressive conduct that implicates speech but not religious values. 256 On the practical side, relegation of free exercise claims to the political process may, as concurring Justice O'Connor warned, result in less protection for small, unpopular religious sects. 257



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt01/05.html#2

[texashorn2005]

This issue may play with conservatives, but they were never going to vote Obama anyhow. To moderates and progressives, the church looks entirely out of step with modern mores. They see a church drawing a line in the sand about the ability to deny women contraceptives while also standing idly by as little boys are buggered for decades by their own. Their faux moral outrage is tired and seems likely to fall on deaf ears.

[VAPA]

I'm sure a POTUS who advocates imprisoning or assassinating his flock without charge or trial will able to make good with an institution that imprisoned and assassinated members of its flock with Malleus Malificarum charge and trial.

[YoLaDu]

Y'all can get all outraged against the evile church, but millions of others have a legitimate complaint that their First Amendment rights are being trampled. And they are NOT all morons, in spite of what you haters like to think.

Are you also refering to complaints that Muslims have when their first Amendment rights get threated in this country?

I am Episcopalian, i love the High Church, but Catholicism drives me crazy. i have seen some pretty intolerant things come from catholic priests, things i would consider wholy un-Christian.

[tantric superman]

I am, once again, at a loss for the words to describe this. It is a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Ignorance, because after years and years of small government discussion, after graduating from grade school and then the Univ of Texas, Tantric acts as if he's never even heard of the founding fathers, limited government, the bill of rights, libertairianism, or small government conservatism. Knowledge is a stranger to Tantric.

Arrogance, because coupled with intellectual blindness is the unwavering belief that if only we do it his way all will be well. And it's not about persuasion, it's about compulsion via federal power. Tantric wants to compel everyone to acts according to his beliefs - everyone else is stupid.

It's Thomas Friedman dreaming that if only we could be dictators for a day (like China) we could achieve a better world, when time and again we see the ruin, the Ayn Randian dystopia that these dreams create. But never mind facts, let's make policies on hopes and dreams and cross our fingers that it will just work out swell for everyone.

Wow. You are saying I am guilty of ignorance and you don't seem to have the slightest understanding of the first amendment or the repurccusions of allowing religious and partially religious organizations (soup kitchens, etc.) from selectively escaping the requirements and responsiblitiies imposed by a popularly elected government?

That's irony. This is like O. Henry and Alanis Morissette had a baby and named it this exact situation.

You going to jump to the defense of Muslim orgnaizations getting around US laws due to their whacked out beliefs?

The Catholic Church can use the poltical process to help get the law changed and if not, it can force it's members not to use the insurance or to have the procedures. Although both of those tactics make you question the whole tax exempt thing.

[tantric superman]

This issue may play with conservatives, but they were never going to vote Obama anyhow. To moderates and progressives, the church looks entirely out of step with modern mores. They see a church drawing a line in the sand about the ability to deny women contraceptives while also standing idly by as little boys are buggered for decades by their own. Their faux moral outrage is tired and seems likely to fall on deaf ears.

In fairness, I think it will be just another complaint about a vastly overdone and invasive law. But your post does capture in fair and neutral terms, unlike my own, this maddening postition of the Catholic church.

[tantric superman]

Malleus Malificarum.

Didn't LSU just draft this kid out of West Memphis High?

[TahoeHorn]

They're running charity hospitals. Charity hospitals. With their money. Their money. And some of you come up with some rationale about the goverment's right to tell them how to spend that money.

You might tell Grandpa he can't give Junior a dangerous toy, but you don't tell him he has to give him a red bike instead of a blue one.

It's their money. It's a charity hospital. Have we gone mad?