# Support Choice?



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 1, 2012)

I hear a lot about choice in women's reproductive choices.  And I agree.  My own personal or religious opinions don't matter; I may vote my conscience, including those based on my religious preferences and the morals I was raised with, but I support a woman's right to choose, and I support the law of the land.  Abortion is legal, birth control is legal, and in general, I'm OK with it.  I would never condemn a woman for making or having made that choice.  Life is difficult, it's not my job to make anyone's life harder.  As the saying goes, if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Fair enough!  So tell me, when the Catholic Church, which doesn't approve of birth control, is ordered to provide contraceptive services to its employees by the federal government, is that OK?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57368259-503544/catholics-hear-anti-obama-letter-in-church/



> During church services on Sunday, Catholics around the country were read a blistering letter assailing the Obama administration for an "assault on religious liberty" in the form of a coming requirement that most church-linked organizations - among them hospitals, schools and universities - offer birth control coverage as part of their health care plans.
> Despite strong lobbying from religious groups, the Health and Human Services Department announced earlier this month that most church-linked groups will not be exempt from the requirements - which also mandate that no co-pay be charged for contraceptive services - though they will have an extra year to comply beyond the August 1 deadline.



The federal government has already done a lot of damage; in some US states, the Catholic Church provides social services as a free service to communities, but was ordered to provide services that it does not morally agree with; so it withdrew services.  Those communities lose, because the federal government believes it can override a religion's right to believe what it wishes.

Now with this requirement, which the Catholic Church has stated flat-out that it will not comply with, it is quite likely that many Catholic services will simply close.  Hospitals and other services; the federal government is asking us to do what we feel is not moral; no, strike that, they're demanding we do it.

Catholics may not agree with abortion or birth control; and many Catholics may vote that way, but no Catholic is compelled to obey church teaching.  Many Catholics use birth control, no doubt many have abortions.  Catholics also obey the law of the land; abortion is legal in the USA, regardless of how the Church feels about it.

But apparently, that freedom only goes one way.  The Church has to respect the woman's right to choose; and the woman's right to choose trumps religious belief EVEN inside the Church.

Religious freedom?  Never heard of it.  Apparently.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 1, 2012)

I disagree with the first part of your post but I agree 100% with the 2nd part.


----------



## granfire (Feb 1, 2012)

I see it a bit different...
BC is a cost saving measure. 
Give the pill now or pay 10k and up for child birth...plus follow up measures. 

However BC is most often not included in the healthcare plan, or only after pre-approval (Viagra on the other hand is available, go figure)

The Pill is often also a treatment for other girly things that ail us. Be it massive menstrual side effects, irregularities there of or plain ole bad skin. I am sure there are a few other things as well. 

I call sexism.
It's against their believes to have extra marital relations, especially for priests, yet they pay for up to 3 kids with the mistress, as long as she keeps her mouth shut.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 1, 2012)

granfire said:


> It's against their believes to have extra marital relations, especially for priests, yet they pay for up to 3 kids with the mistress, as long as she keeps her mouth shut.



Huh whos paying for 3 kids?  You lost me


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 1, 2012)

Bill, I'd agree with you for any organization that is considered part of the Church. As soon as an org is removed from the Church enough that they are not able to only hire Catholics, then they should not be treated any different. OTOH, I don't know why someone would get a job in an org that is closely tied to a religious org. I know I've passed on opportunities from Xtian based orgs solely based on that.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Bill, I'd agree with you for any organization that is considered part of the Church. As soon as an org is removed from the Church enough that they are not able to only hire Catholics, then they should not be treated any different. OTOH, I don't know why someone would get a job in an org that is closely tied to a religious org. I know I've passed on opportunities from Xtian based orgs solely based on that.


That is no less idiotic than Indonesia, after it got devastated by the tsunami turning down aid freely offered by Israel, it's just a differently aimed bigotry...

I agree, how dare those Catholics provide employment and charity work? Bastards. They really should say F*** YOU all and quit charity in any nation that treats them as poorly as this one. They won't, but, the threat of it would stop this all together.


----------



## Carol (Feb 2, 2012)

I took my first paid broadcasting job working for the Christian Science Monitor's radio broadcast division.  I was hired the day of Desert Storm.   This was at the mother church of the First Church Of Christ, Scientist...where a core belief is prayer instead of medicine. I had been told that they were recently ordered to make health insurance available to employees.   Was that OK?  To me it was.  I didn't have to be a Christian Scientist to work there.  I appreciated having Blue Cross, prescription drugs, and a primary care doctor over a minister, the Bible, and Mary Baker Eddy's books.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 2, 2012)

Big Don said:


> That is no less idiotic than Indonesia, after it got devastated by the tsunami turning down aid freely offered by Israel, it's just a differently aimed bigotry...



No, my beliefs were just not compatible with theirs.



> I agree, how dare those Catholics provide employment and charity work? Bastards. They really should say F*** YOU all and quit charity in any nation that treats them as poorly as this one. They won't, but, the threat of it would stop this all together.



Refer to Carol's post as well. As soon as you have employees that are not of the same faith, you shouls have to provide benefits aimed at the greater society.


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Huh whos paying for 3 kids?  You lost me



The Catholic church.

Worst kept secret on the planet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> I see it a bit different...
> BC is a cost saving measure.
> Give the pill now or pay 10k and up for child birth...plus follow up measures.
> 
> ...



It's not really about birth control, per se. It's about forcing a religious institution that is against birth control to provide it to its employees, against its own beliefs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Bill, I'd agree with you for any organization that is considered part of the Church. As soon as an org is removed from the Church enough that they are not able to only hire Catholics, then they should not be treated any different. OTOH, I don't know why someone would get a job in an org that is closely tied to a religious org. I know I've passed on opportunities from Xtian based orgs solely based on that.



Part of the mandate of the Church is to help the poor and to cure the sick.  The Catholic Church (and others) do that with private (non-government) social services and hospitals.  However, these church-affiliated institutions are still just that; church-affiliated.  That means they adhere to the moral values of the church.  The federal government has always given exemptions to religious institutions on that basis; the government chose to keep the wall between Church and State.  However, the Obama Administration has decided to break that down.  The federal government is requiring the Catholic Church (and other religious organizations) to make birth control and abortions available to its employees, in violation of the Church's own policies and beliefs.

As you said, no one has to work for such an organization, whether or not they are Catholic.  I could certainly understand a person saying _"Gee, I don't want to work for an organization that won't provide me with birth control as part of my health benefits.  I will work someplace else instead."_  Yay, good for them, I totally get it.  This is forcing the Church to do what it believes is morally wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

Big Don said:


> That is no less idiotic than Indonesia, after it got devastated by the tsunami turning down aid freely offered by Israel, it's just a differently aimed bigotry...
> 
> I agree, how dare those Catholics provide employment and charity work? Bastards. They really should say F*** YOU all and quit charity in any nation that treats them as poorly as this one. They won't, but, the threat of it would stop this all together.



Sadly, this is starting to happen in the USA.  And I know that most on MT favor same-sex marriage, so I'll just say this; Catholic charities in several states where they have provided adoption services and foster care have been ordered to place children in same-sex families and have refused to do so, as it is against Church teachings.  This came to loggerheads and the end result was that the Church has closed their adoption agencies and foster care facilities in those states.  The losers are the children, of course, and I feel very badly about that.  But the states that forced the Church to do this put them in an untenable position.  Either do something they believe to be morally wrong, or stop providing those services.  They chose to stop providing those services.  Now those states are sucking wind because they don't have the budgets to pick up the slack that the Church provided as a service to the community.  Everybody loses because the state insisted that the Catholic Church place orphans with gay couples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/illinois-catholic-chariti_n_1093649.html



> "The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies," Breen said. "Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections."
> 
> Earlier this year, the state moved to cancel $30.6 million worth of contracts with the charities because they were not following state non-discrimination laws in denying adoption and foster care placements for couples entered into the state's newly-approved civil union law. The charities -- in Peoria, Joliet, Springfield and Bellville -- argued that they shouldn't be forced to place children in families whose lives don't align with Catholic teaching, namely unmarried couples.



Regardless of where one stands on the issue of same-sex marriage, religious freedom exists also.  It is "OK" for a religion to believe that same-sex marriage is not acceptable and to see it as immoral; no one is forced to believe that, it's just what the Church and the Faithful believe.  The Church provides social services as part of its mandate to help the poor and downtrodden as it has since the beginning, but the State insists that the Church violate its own principles in order to continue to do so.  Everybody loses.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

Institutions like Catholic hospitals, while founded and funded by the Catholic church, usually have a corporate structure completely separate from the  Church, and corporate governance that often has no Church officials or clerics on board. As such, this is not "forcing the Church to do what it believes is morally wrong," which providing _insurance coverage_ for is a bit of a stretch, morally speaking, anyway-just because I have insurance that covers abortions, for example,certainly doesn't mean that I'm ever going to have occasion to use it.:lol:

On the other hand, moral decisions are an individual choice. Where abortions might save the life of the mother, why shouldn't insurance be able to cover that. Likewise, the pill is prescribed for a variety of things besides contraception, and, in cases of rape, while the "morning after pill" can certainly provide peace of mind to a traumatized woman, there really could be no certainty of its having prevented pregnancy, anymore than there could be of pregnancy having occurred- on the morning after, at any rate.

On the other hand, if the Church itself had to provide such insurance to its non-clerical employees, that would be another matter altogether, and your position would have merit. In light of the law of the land, though-_which itself may prove to be unconstitutional for other reasons_ such institutions have no choice in the matter, and, yes, sadly may choose to cease providing their services, rather than comply. Yay, good for them; I totally get it.


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not really about birth control, per se. It's about forcing a religious institution that is against birth control to provide it to its employees, against its own beliefs.



Like I said, it's hypocrisy. The church does not believe in priests meddling around either, but yet pay for up to three of those results, as long as everybody keeps their mouths shut. 

Years back in Germany there was a big outcry of some kind or another about church run preschool facilities...well, all nice and dandy, until you look at how much (or little) the church actually contributed: 11%, as in ELEVEN.

Not impressed.
At all.

The church does not believe in a lot of things but gives them a pass anyhow.
BC in this day and age, really?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Institutions like Catholic hospitals, while founded and funded by the Catholic church, usually have a corporate structure completely separate from the  Church, and corporate governance that often has no Church officials or clerics on board. As such, this is not "forcing the Church to do what it believes is morally wrong," which providing _insurance coverage_ for is a bit of a stretch, morally speaking, anyway-just because I have insurance that covers abortions, for example,certainly doesn't mean that I'm ever going to have occasion to use it.:lol:
> 
> On the other hand, moral decisions are an individual choice. Where abortions might save the life of the mother, why shouldn't insurance be able to cover that. Likewise, the pill is prescribed for a variety of things besides contraception, and, in cases of rape, while the "morning after pill" can certainly provide peace of mind to a traumatized woman, there really could be no certainty of its having prevented pregnancy, anymore than there could be of pregnancy having occurred- on the morning after, at any rate.
> 
> On the other hand, if the Church itself had to provide such insurance to its non-clerical employees, that would be another matter altogether, and your position would have merit. In light of the law of the land, though-_which itself may prove to be unconstitutional for other reasons_ such institutions have no choice in the matter, and, yes, sadly may choose to cease providing their services, rather than comply. Yay, good for them; I totally get it.



That's not correct, and I can provide direct evidence of it.  My wife's uncle was president of a major Catholic university in NYC for nearly 30 years; he is a priest.  I don't think you could tell him that the university was not under the direct control and supervision of the Catholic Church.

There are certainly hospitals and other organizations in which governance has passed from Catholic to lay supervision and direction, and in those circumstances, the Church is currently in the process of disassociating itself from those institutions; which is entirely appropriate.  And in such cases, I agree that the Church has no say in what kind of health care they provide employees.  To wit:

http://www.chausa.org/Catholic_Healthcare_West_reorganizes_governance.aspx



> Catholic Healthcare West has reorganized its governance structure and changed its name to Dignity Health. Under the new governance model the San Francisco-based operating company is *no longer an official ministry of the Catholic Church.* The company, which operates 40 hospitals in three states, also announced its intent to build a national health care system rooted in the Catholic tradition with both Catholic and other-than-Catholic components and partnerships.



I am referring to institutions which ARE an 'official ministry of the Catholic Church', and as such are under the direct moral, spiritual, and day-to-day governance of the Church.  This is no different than any religious institution.  And in fact, in an article in Politico this morning, President Obama acknowledged that there is a provision sheltering religious organizations from this birth control health insurance requirement, but he has intentionally decided not to honor it.  Plain and simple, he's picking a fight for the purposes of his re-election campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345.html



> The president&#8217;s tone was polite but not contrite, a person briefed on the calls told POLITICO: He explained that while his health care law exempted Catholic churches from the requirement, he wouldn&#8217;t carve out other Catholic institutions even though the Vatican views artificial birth control as contrary to the will of God.



This is all about his re-election.  And the losers are those who seek to follow their own moral guidance based on their own faith.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

This is still really much ado about nothing, Bill-Jehovah`s Witnesses and Christian Scientists have been forced by the government to provide medical care in direct contravention of "their own moral guidance based on their own faith" on numerous occasions over the years. Was it right? I don't know-I know it probably didn't feel right to the people involved. 

Again, just because an institution has to provide insurance, doesn't mean that they're culpable in how that insurance is used, or even that it will be used in that way. 


And I've been saying  for years what an *** Obama is, and this proves it-he's probably determined that he doesn't need the Catholic vote, or wasn't going to get it-because if he was, this will lose it for him-though this will be a popuar decision with his base, as students at Catholic schools like Fordham will be able to get contraception through their university health plan.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

elder999 said:


> This is still really much ado about nothing, Bill-Jehovah`s Witnesses and Christian Scientists have been forced by the government to provide medical care in direct contravention of "their own moral guidance based on their own faith" on numerous occasions over the years. Was it right? I don't know-I know it probably didn't feel right to the people involved.
> 
> Again, just because an institution has to provide insurance, doesn't mean that they're culpable in how that insurance is used, or even that it will be used in that way.
> 
> ...



I don't think it is much ado about nothing.  It is certainly 'something' for Catholics who follow Church precepts.  To wit:

http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resou...tudent_health_servi/medical_services_1524.asp



> Women's Health care: Women's Health Care services are available for all female students at the Rose Hill and Lincoln Center campuses five days per week by appointment. Services include routine gynecological examinations, pap smears, sexual transmitted infections testing, and pregnancy testing. Treatment and related counseling are confidential and always offered in a non-judgmental manner.
> 
> Neither contraceptives nor birth control are distributed or prescribed on premises as a standard practice. Student Health Services does make limited exceptions for the treatment of medical conditions accompanied by supporting documentation. There is a nominal charge for GYN exams, and associated laboratory fees are the responsibility of the student. Discounted rates are available if students do not have private insurance (please contact the office for a fee schedule).



So what this new requirement will do is this.  The Church says "We do not believe in contraception."  A student (actually this applies to employees, not students, but let's just say) comes in and says "I want contraceptives."  The clinic says "The Church teaches against contraception and we are a Catholic organization.  But here you go."  An employee of a Catholic organization says "I want an abortion and I want the Catholic Church to pay for it."  The Church says "We are against abortion, but here you go.  And we'll use Catholic donations to pay for it."

Much ado about nothing?  For non-Catholics, I can see that.  For believing Catholics, it's very much something.  A core belief that the government is forcing them to go against.

And as you said; and I agree; this isn't about anything in the core set of Democratic beliefs here.  This is about election-year politics.  So Catholics have to eat **** so Obama can play a weird strategy.  Yeah, that sits well.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 2, 2012)

What other aspects of labor law does this "faith exemption" cover when the church runs a business?  Mandatory reporter laws (apropos, that), overtime pay, child labor laws?  Religious freedom is not license to ignore the laws governing public businesses, which the hospitals certainly are.  If it where, then church-affiliated businesses become lawless zones as long as a faith-based argument can be provided - which we know is not the case.  If I run a deli and my faith instructs me that gays are sinful, am I allowed to excluded gays from employment or service in my deli?  Nope, not at all.  My religious freedom is not being impinged upon either - I am free to think whatever I want as long as my public business follows the law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> What other aspects of labor law does this "faith exemption" cover when the church runs a business?  Mandatory reporter laws (apropos, that), overtime pay, child labor laws?  Religious freedom is not license to ignore the laws governing public businesses, which the hospitals certainly are.  If it where, then church-affiliated businesses become lawless zones as long as a faith-based argument can be provided - which we know is not the case.  If I run a deli and my faith instructs me that gays are sinful, am I allowed to excluded gays from employment or service in my deli?  Nope, not at all.  My religious freedom is not being impinged upon either - I am free to think whatever I want as long as my public business follows the law.



To the best of my knowledge, it is not considered a religious tenet by the Catholic that people be paid a certain amount of money.  In any case, it's not in question here.  This is about the Church being forced to provide insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptive services to its employees, against the teachings of the Church.


----------



## billc (Feb 2, 2012)

First, if you try to set up a christmas tree outside of city hall, there is apparently an adamantium wall between church and state and the atheist zealots see the inquisition around the corner.  With a policy that will impact millions of people around the country there is apparently a paper thin wall between church and state.

Next, the real problem is that people have become used to the government being able to tell a private organization what they have to provide for health care, and that they are telling private insurance companies what they have to cover as part of their insurance plans.  That is the whole underlying problem and that needs to be addressed.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 2, 2012)

I don't know if it has been addressed yet, or how the Catholic hospitals work.  But, if they accept even $1 of state/federal money than the govt does have the right to tell how it's practices will be run.  I know this has been the case with universities and their policies in the past and the universities have lost because of that.

As to the question itself, we have been allowing the government to tell private businesses how they can run things for awhile now.  Look at many of the anti-smoking bans in private restuarants and bars.  Now, we ALL get to walk through the nasty cloud of smoke on the street because they are all gathered outside the door.


----------



## Carol (Feb 2, 2012)

Absolutely they do.  For example, in 2009-2010, St. Joseph's Hospital in Nashua, NH received $400,000, St. Anselm's college in Manchester, NH(not a hospital, but a nursing school) in Manchester, NH received $800,000

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp111kkesc&r_n=sr066.111&dbname=cp111&&sel=TOC_178060&
http://www.anselm.edu/About-Saint-Anselm.htm
http://stjosephhospital4.reachlocal.net/About/History-Mission-Values

Additionally, there is a federal program called "Title X Family Planning".  This is a program that supplies monies specifically for family planning and contraception, particularly for low-income people if I am not mistaken.  If a hospital receives monies under Title X Family Planning, that money must absolutely go to Title X Family Planning.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks;[URL="tel:1458373" said:
			
		

> 1458373[/URL]]I don't think it is much ado about nothing.  It is certainly 'something' for Catholics who follow Church precepts.  To wit:
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resou...tudent_health_servi/medical_services_1524.asp
> 
> .



And yet, Bill, from the very same webpage:



> *For students enrolled in Fordham's  Optional Sickness Insurance Plan administered by Collegiated Insurance  Resources, please see the section on "Contraceptive Services Expense  Benefit"*, pages 19-20, for information on coverage and deductibles  (note: covered services are subject to applicable co-payments of $100  under the Prescription Drug Benefit Plan portion of the program). For  general insurance questions on this coverage, please feel free to  contact the broker at (800) 322-9901.



The option's available-presumably for those students who aren't Catholic.


----------



## cdunn (Feb 2, 2012)

Maybe we should take health care out of the hands of the employers. It would save the Church and other various organizations from having to accept that not all employees may have the same morals as their decision makers when it comes to their private lives.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

Carol said:


> Absolutely they do.  For example, in 2009-2010, St. Joseph's Hospital in Nashua, NH received $400,000, St. Anselm's college in Manchester, NH(not a hospital, but a nursing school) in Manchester, NH received $800,000
> 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp111kkesc&r_n=sr066.111&dbname=cp111&&sel=TOC_178060&
> http://www.anselm.edu/About-Saint-Anselm.htm
> ...



The bottom line for me is this.  The Catholic Church has for a very long time provided services to their local communities as part of their religious mission.  Now they are being required to do something that they have not previously been required to do - for whatever reason - and from what I can tell, no one except (some) Catholics have a problem with this.  I see this as a one-way street.  As a Catholic, I am supposed to accept that the will of the people, and not the will of the church, is the law of the land.  If we choose as a people to use birth control and abortion, then no religion can stop it.  And I'm OK with that, I really am.  But if it was really all about 'choice', then a religion that chooses NOT to pay for or provide birth control or abortions should also have their right to choose respected.  But no.  So it's not about choice.  It's about 'do it my way or we will force you to do it by law'.  Nice.  Try to remember that when I put my money into the collection plate or respond to the annual Bishop's Appeal to support Catholic social services and charities, I am spending MY MONEY to fund the things that matter to me as a Catholic.  If you're saying I have to fund abortions with my donation dollars, guess what?  No more donations from me.  How's that work for ya? Maybe you can force the Catholic Church to violate her moral principles, but you can't force me to pay for it; and I won't.  I refuse.

As regards the Church, for those of you who attend Mass (apparently not many of you, or you'd know this by now), the various Cardinals in the US have ordered a letter read in every Mass last Sunday, explaining the situation and refusing to comply with the new regulations.  In other words, we, the Catholic Church, will not obey this law.  And if it means that the hospitals, social services, and other providers of services that are under the control of the Catholic Church shut down and no longer provide services for our local communities, then that is what it means.  That's what you want, that's what you get.

Sometimes, people refuse to be bullied.  I believe (and hope) that this is one of those times.  I sincerely hope Obama backs down, or the USA is going to lose a lot of extremely important medical and social assistance.


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

Well, the Catholic Church has been pretty good about bullying, too, so there.

If the social work is a religious tenet, then they should do it, in adversity, should earn them browny points.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2012)

I thought when this health care thing was passed they said it could not be used to fund abortions or birth control.  Thats how they got the blue dog Dems to vote for it.  Or did I imagine all that?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> Well, the Catholic Church has been pretty good about bullying, too, so there.
> 
> If the social work is a religious tenet, then they should do it, in adversity, should earn them browny points.


Since giving alms, i.e., charity is one of the five pillars of Islam:
Sure, lets force Islamic charities that serve food to serve ham three days a week. How is that going to go over?


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Since giving alms, i.e., charity is one of the five pillars of Islam:
> Sure, lets force Islamic charities that serve food to serve ham three days a week. How is that going to go over?




Don't be obtuse.
You can prepare a million meals and never throw a pig on the plate. And never miss it.

Well, miss the BC one time, you might notice.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

No, sorry.  All I'm hearing is intolerance.  Either "the Catholic Church has done lots of bad things, so too bad," or "they should be forced to do good things even if they don't want to."  Few of you are willing to let a religious institution provide services according to their own morals and principles.  So you do NOT support choice; you admit as much.

Choice, to you, is we who do not believe in abortion, birth control, and same-sex adoptions have to put up with it anyway, but YOU do not have to put up with us practicing our faith in our daily lives; nope, not at all.  There's some choice for you.  So tolerant of the beliefs of others.  You know, tolerance, that thing you demand of us.  You get it, but you won't give it.

Disappointing.  And you seem to have missed my statement; the Catholic Church has declared they will not comply with these restrictions.  If push comes to shove, that means Catholic-supported charities and hospitals and social services will close, they'll go away.  They may receive some federal and state funds for the services they provide; but they also receive a lot of money from donations from Catholics.  I won't donate to things that go against my religion; you can't make me do it.

There are children now in Illinois that no longer have a roof over their heads because the Catholic Social Services closed down; and they closed down because the state tried to bully them into placing children with same-sex couples, which might be something you're in favor of (and I understand if you are, because *I* am tolerant), but you refuse to accept that a religious institution finds is unacceptable and therefore won't do it.

So everybody loses because of your intolerance.  Isn't that nice?  I thought better of you than that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2012)

Christians are the only group that it is still PC to bash.  Its become quite the sport for the left.    If you dont like the Churchs position then dont go to a Cathloic Hospital go to a different one.  Dont take a job at a Catholic Orginzation if you dont like what they stand for.  But its more fun to piss them off and try for a reaction.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Christians are the only group that it is still PC to bash.  Its become quite the sport for the left.    If you dont like the Churchs position then dont go to a Cathloic Hospital go to a different one.  Dont take a job at a Catholic Orginzation if you dont like what they stand for.  But its more fun to piss them off and try for a reaction.



I have to agree.  You take a typical religious charity that has 'civilian' employees, which it pays and provides benefits for, such as health insurance.  But because the religion in question doesn't agree with, say, abortion, they won't pay for that form of insurance coverage for their employees.  Note that employees can work elsewhere. Or they can pay for such services themselves, or obtain insurance elsewhere.  But that's not good enough for the oh-so-very tolerant respecters of the beliefs of others;  well, they respect the beliefs of others IF THEY AGREE WITH THEM.  They demand we tolerate their choices; and we do.  They do not extend that courtesy to others.

I have no say in how my taxes are spent.  I have to pay to fund things I don't agree with.  All I can do is vote for people whom I think will spend my taxes the way I want them spent; but in the end, I have no choice.

Now I am being told I am not to be allowed to have a choice in how I spend my charitable contributions either.  I can contribute to my religion's charitable activities, but the money will be spent the way I do not want it spent, in ways that are actually against my religious beliefs.  And THAT is fair somehow?  That is respecting my rights?  My only recourse it to withhold my contributions entirely?  Either I have to give to fund things I don't like, or I can't give at all?  Nice.


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, sorry.  All I'm hearing is intolerance.  Either "the Catholic Church has done lots of bad things, so too bad," or "they should be forced to do good things even if they don't want to."  Few of you are willing to let a religious institution provide services according to their own morals and principles.  So you do NOT support choice; you admit as much.
> 
> Choice, to you, is we who do not believe in abortion, birth control, and same-sex adoptions have to put up with it anyway, but YOU do not have to put up with us practicing our faith in our daily lives; nope, not at all.  There's some choice for you.  So tolerant of the beliefs of others.  You know, tolerance, that thing you demand of us.  You get it, but you won't give it.
> 
> ...




Yeah, blame it on Obama that the Church shut down their operations.

Are you kidding me?

this is the 21st century, we are nearing how many billion people on this planet now?!

The Catholic church is no victim. Never was. It has it's hands in so many pies, the pope should be a diabetic by default!

It's massive hypocrisy. 

It's always been this way. OH EM GEE BIRTH CONTROL.
Like I said: The priests are also supposed to be celebate....maybe if they gave some BC to their mistresses....

Be religious as you want. That's fine. But there are the standards of the land in a legal manner. and I for one applaude it.

It's a man's world out there, safe for a few isolated pockets.
Pregnancy is probably the number one cause for poverty among women, across the globe. 

yes, we still oppose birth control by means of religion.....

It's BS. Sand in your eyes, Smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> Yeah, blame it on Obama that the Church shut down their operations.
> 
> Are you kidding me?



No, I'm not kidding you.  Your dislike of the Catholic Church is clear; and I won't say you're not right about much of it.  The Church as much to answer for.

But that's not the issue.  This isn't about punishing the Church for all the wrong it's done, even if you think that's appropriate.

It's about the right of a religion to provide their employees with health insurance coverage that conforms to their own morals and principles.  It's about MY right to give my charitable donations to my own religious institutions in accordance with my own beliefs; you flat out state I'm not allowed to follow my own beliefs because you don't like the Catholic Church.

That's horrible.  You should be ashamed.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2012)

It goes back to freedom of choice if you don't like it choose a different hospital.  If you don't like it choose a different place to work.  I don't like liberals so I would never take a job for the democratic national party or the brady campaign.  Its simple really.  I don't want to force them to change just for me so I choose not to go there.   If you want birth control then don't get a job working for catholic church.  Having mistresses has nothing to do with the argument.  It just shows you can't be unbias in your argument and are out to punish the church.  Like the bully saying ha ha ill fix you.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 2, 2012)

Meh, I don't like the idea of catholic hospitals and clinics to start with. If they run a hospital or clinic, then they demand to run it how they see fit in the community. That includes refusing to offer plan b to rape victims as part of rape kits, not offering abortion amongst options for women who need counseling for an unplanned pregnancy and so on. I'm content to see a catholic hospital/clinic shut down. I'd much rather see a real hospital/planned parenthood there instead.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2012)

Yeah we have too many hospitals anyway.  They don't do any good for the community.  That's a great plan.  The wait at the ER on a sat night can be longer no big deal.  Shut them down.  Planned parenthood is very useful to people in serious car accidents. 



Monroe said:


> Meh, I don't like the idea of catholic hospitals and clinics to start with. If they run a hospital or clinic, then they demand to run it how they see fit in the community. That includes refusing to offer plan b to rape victims as part of rape kits, not offering abortion amongst options for women who need counseling for an unplanned pregnancy and so on. I'm content to see a catholic hospital/clinic shut down. I'd much rather see a real hospital/planned parenthood there instead.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> Don't be obtuse.
> You can prepare a million meals and never throw a pig on the plate. And never miss it.
> 
> Well, miss the BC one time, you might notice.


So, suggesting the same standard, that all religions who provide charity ignore their beliefs is being obtuse?
BTW, Islam... not fans of abortion...
1





> . Deliberate termination of a human fetus in a  								surgical, chemical or by any other artificial  								method is intrinsically an unlawful act in Islam  								and its doer will be held liable both in here  								and in the hereafter.
> 
> 2. A pregnant woman from the Islamic point of  								view is not the owner of her fetus as parents  								are not the owners of their children. She is  								rather entrusted with a human being in its early  								stages of its life responsible for its  								nourishment and development. The likeness of a  								mother's womb in Islam is the likeness of  								enriched tilth for cultivation.[1]
> 
> 3. In Islam all life matters'. Killing an  								innocent human even in its early stages as in  								abortion is like killing the whole of mankind,  								and to save a single human even in its fetus or  								embryonic stage is like saving the life of the  								whole of mankind





> http://www.islamic-laws.com/abortion.htm


Force the Islamic charities to provide funds for abortions. See how that goes over...


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2012)

It is pretty easy to attack people for their beliefs, especially when they don't tend to blow up over insults. Those who do react explosively are remarkably insulated from criticism...


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 3, 2012)

Better add the susan g komen to your list of places you want to shutdown they are cutting grants to your beloved planned parenthood




Monroe said:


> Meh, I don't like the idea of catholic hospitals and clinics to start with. If they run a hospital or clinic, then they demand to run it how they see fit in the community. That includes refusing to offer plan b to rape victims as part of rape kits, not offering abortion amongst options for women who need counseling for an unplanned pregnancy and so on. I'm content to see a catholic hospital/clinic shut down. I'd much rather see a real hospital/planned parenthood there instead.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2012)

What it really comes down to is this simple: Christian charities do a ton of good in the world in return for a shitload of derision and snarky commentary. You don't want my help, when I offer freely, I'll say "F*** You, suffer" you want my help, but, decide to ridicule me, or ***** and whine about the manner in which I help you, same answer,"F*** you, suffer". You should be damned glad Catholic (and other Christian) charities are nicer than me.


----------



## granfire (Feb 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I'm not kidding you.  Your dislike of the Catholic Church is clear; and I won't say you're not right about much of it.  The Church as much to answer for.
> 
> But that's not the issue.  This isn't about punishing the Church for all the wrong it's done, even if you think that's appropriate.
> 
> ...




Ashamed? Exactly why?

Because I don't do religion in an organized form and tend to be rather disillusioned about what is going on behind the scenes?

You can do as you lease with your money. 

however, once you become an employer with many people who work for you, you are no longer a private person and rules apply. Many of which you might not like, don't agree with or find outright stupid.


Health insurance is not a charitable event. It ought to be universal and all inclusive. As I said before, BC was never really an item on the insurance plan, except after some hoop jumping. Viagra on the other hand is dished out like candy and paid for. 
Prenatal care and birth sets an insurance company back tot he tune of around 10.000 dollars. Then they have to pay for the baby, too. You can dish out a lot of pills and condoms for that!
Also, the Pill is also used to treat a number of ailments in the female health sector. 


The church has deep coffers. Yet they like to cry poor when convenient. 
It's a popular theme with the church to pull funding when they don't get their way, with a big huff to boot.

The stance on Birth control is archaic, to put it mildly especially when you consider that a lot of the church members are living in some of the poorest countries. 
Having children puts women many times on the brink of poverty. Even in the rich US. And more often than not dooming their offspring to repeat the cycle.

There is no punishing the church (they don't even get that for the things they did do wrong), just holding them to the standard a high profile employer needs to rise to.
Health care is health care. One should not be able to pick and chose what they are willing to provide. 

You do not have to take birth control if you do not wish to do so. Nobody is infringing on your rights.
But you have no right to tell your wife she can't take any. 


But in the end it probably just boils down to a pi$$ing contest on a political level. You know, all the good caring people who don't want everybody in the US to have what most industrialized nations in the world have: affordable healthcare for everybody.


----------



## granfire (Feb 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Better add the susan g komen to your list of places you want to shutdown they are cutting grants to your beloved planned parenthood



Me?

Not giving to the pink plague anyhow...but for other reasons.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 3, 2012)

Freedom of choice is left to each individual to search their heart for the right answer, in their life. This is where "choose ye this day" has profound implications.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 3, 2012)

granfire said:


> Me?
> 
> Not giving to the pink plague anyhow...but for other reasons.



No not you that was to the guy that wanted all catholic hospitals replaced with planned parenthood


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 3, 2012)

granfire said:


> Ashamed? Exactly why?



Because you put your dislike of the Catholic Church in place of logic in your argument.  It's not about religious freedom for you, it's about your dislike of Catholics.

Let's prove it.

Take an imaginary religion, call it the Lumpovians.  They are a large religious organization with many believers, and part of their religious mission is to provide social and medical services to their local communities.  They believe that their Savior, Jubbawak, said "Feed my children," and "Heal the sick," and they take this seriously.  So they open foster care homes and they do placement of orphans in adoptive homes, they build hospitals and hire doctors and nurses and provide health care.  This is done for nearly a hundred years in some communities, to the extent that the states have welcomed the additional assistance, and they find it cost-effective to partner with the Lumpovians and other groups like them to provide low-cost assistance; they even contribute money to help them, because it's an effective use of taxpayer dollars compared to what it cost to do it all via the state.  These symbiotic relationships go on for a very long time, and in general, no one has a problem with them.  The Lumpovians don't insist on preaching or converting the non-Lumpovians they help, and the state doesn't tell the Lumpovians how to provide services or what form of insurance they have to offer their civilian employees.

As it turns out, the Lumpovians believe that Jubbawak told them to avoid dental work.  Lots of people think the Lumpovians are crazy, because dental work is essential to modern health.  Even many Lumpovians themselves get dental care, against the teachings of the Church.  There are various reform movements inside the Lumpovian Church by concerned lay people and religious who think that the Church should change with the times, and accept that dental health is a good thing.  Outside the Church, most citizens believe in dental health and practice it without feeling guilt or shame; dental work is legal and available to all who want it.  Many employers provide dental health care bundles with other forms of health insurance.

However, the Lumpovians do not agree, and they do not provide dental health care in their health insurance services to their employees.  And this has always been the case.  The state has not had any reason to kick about it until recently.  It's an election year, and the current President, President Wassamattayou, is fighting a bitter battle for re-election.  He hasn't really managed to accomplish much in his first four years in office, but he did get  massive health care overhaul passed and made into law.  It has a requirement that all employers provide dental health care to their employees, although in order to get it passed, he had to compromise with the other party, the Repoopinators, to get it done.  One of the compromises was that he would exempt religious organizations.

Now President Wassamattayou has decided that in order to recharge his campaign and get support from Dental Rights groups, he is going to 'interpret' the religious exclusion from the law such that it only means the churches themselves, and not the institutions they might run for the benefit of others.  This causes outrage from the Lumpovians and similar organizations, because they are being ordered to provide and pay for services which directly contradict what they believe as a religious tenet of faith.  However, it has the benefit of taking control of the public debate for President Wassamattayou, and it gives him a boost with the Dental Rights organizations, which had seen him as soft of Dental Rights.

***********************

Now, I have removed the Catholics that you hate.  It's the Lumpovians now.  I have remove any reference to reproductive rights, so get that emotional bugaboo out of the argument.  I have even removed the Democrat versus Republican twaddle that keeps so many people from being able to engage their brains.  But the ARGUMENT is the SAME.  A religious group is being ordered to provide a service to their employees which directly violates their moral beliefs, which they have never before been forced to do, and it appears to be a political battle that is about the re-election of President Wassamattayou, not about the actual issue of providing dental care to employees.

NOW.  If you care to comment on the ISSUE, and not spout twaddle about the horrible Lumpovians and how their priests diddle little kids, maybe we can have a grown-up conversation.  But if all you have to say is how evil the Pope of Lumpovia is, then I have to say good day to you, and yes, you should be ashamed, you hater you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 3, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Freedom of choice is left to each individual to search their heart for the right answer, in their life. This is where "choose ye this day" has profound implications.



Traditionally, the various religious organizations have supplemented the social and medical services provided by private organizations and governments as part of their religious missions.  Their efforts have generally been well-appreciated in the communities where they are present, and in most ways, the state has traditionally chosen not to interfere with the manner in which the religious organizations provide those services.  If there are some small areas where various religious organizations do not provide services because of heartfelt religious beliefs, the state has not insisted, and indeed there are many other places where such services can be obtained anyway.  That's freedom of religion, that's freedom of choice.

When the individual gives charity to the religious organizations to which they belong or support, they know that their dollars are being spent in a way consistent with their own desires and beliefs.  That's freedom of choice.

Being told that a religious organization must provide services with which they do not agree on a religious basis is not freedom of religion.  It is not freedom of choice.

And being told that one's charitable contributions will be spent in ways with which one does not agree for religious reasons is likewise not freedom of choice.

And that is what I object to.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But the ARGUMENT is the SAME.  A religious group is being ordered to provide a service to their employees which directly violates their moral beliefs, which they have never before been forced to do...



Yes, it is the same, but there are challenges to this very argument which you have either ignored or brushed off.  How far does "religious freedom" go in the violation of employer law?  Was the fact that Carol's Christian Scientist employer was forced to provide healthcare of any sort at all an intolerable violation of religious freedom?  Or if our Lumpovians have a sincere belief in child labor or the immoral intolerability of the 40 hour work week?  I *know* you think there are limits here, which will probably vary from case to case, as after all some compromise will be required when religious institutions run public businesses - just as I as a private citizen may be required to make compromises with my beliefs if I run a public business.  So this particular case must be justified on its own merits, not lumped in with the set argument, because I am 99% sure you believe that this argument has limits.  So it must be justified - why should the Church be able to ignore labor law in this case?

On a separate note, I also find it suspicious that a tenet of freedom involves the freedom to treat other people a certain way in a way that impacts their life and livelihood.  Freedom is fundamentally centered in the self.  I would have to think more though on if that thought holds up.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah we have too many hospitals anyway.  They don't do any good for the community.  That's a great plan.  The wait at the ER on a sat night can be longer no big deal.  Shut them down.  Planned parenthood is very useful to people in serious car accidents.



I don't live in the US. But it seems a religion is making up for government failure to provide adequate medical services. I don't believe religion has a place in medicine. The fact that a religion has to step up and take care of people that your government doesn't take care of seems to prove that privatized medicine is a complete sham.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Better add the susan g komen to your list of places you want to shutdown they are cutting grants to your beloved planned parenthood





The reason SGK pulled their  funding to PP (and they award grants to over 2,000 different  organizations) is because of a newly implemented rule that does not  allow them to fund anyone that is being investigated by a government  body.  This rule was implemented shortly after Karen Handel (staunch  anti-abortionist) was brought on as the new senior VP. PP is being  investigated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican,  who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to  provide abortions. PP is the ONLY organization that this new rule now  applies.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 3, 2012)

Big Don said:


> What it really comes down to is this simple: Christian charities do a ton of good in the world in return for a shitload of derision and snarky commentary. You don't want my help, when I offer freely, I'll say "F*** You, suffer" you want my help, but, decide to ridicule me, or ***** and whine about the manner in which I help you, same answer,"F*** you, suffer". You should be damned glad Catholic (and other Christian) charities are nicer than me.



I don't use any christian charities and I'd rather they stepped away and the population and coporations taxed accordingly to provide adequate social aid without and religious agendas. I feel the same way about any religions trying to impress their religion on communities.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> No not you that was to the guy that wanted all catholic hospitals replaced with planned parenthood




I wrote "real hospitals/planned parenthoods". Your reading comprehension skills have much to be desired.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 3, 2012)

Monroe said:


> I wrote "real hospitals/planned parenthoods". Your reading comprehension skills have much to be desired.



Nope I read clearly what you wrote.  Planned parenthoods are not hospitals.  Are you suggesting you want planned parenthoods to now become full service hospital?  That's not their mission.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 3, 2012)

Monroe said:


> I don't use any christian charities.


good so leave them alone since they don't bother you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 3, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Yes, it is the same, but there are challenges to this very argument which you have either ignored or brushed off.  How far does "religious freedom" go in the violation of employer law?  Was the fact that Carol's Christian Scientist employer was forced to provide healthcare of any sort at all an intolerable violation of religious freedom?



I haven't brushed it off at all, I answered it directly.  I'll answer it again.  To the best of my knowledge, providing health care "of any sort" is not a violation of any religious tenets, so no.  I don't know of any religious beliefs that say "we don't pay minimum wage" or "we are against health care on a religion basis."  Maybe there are, so I say 'to the best of my knowledge'.  



> Or if our Lumpovians have a sincere belief in child labor or the immoral intolerability of the 40 hour work week?  I *know* you think there are limits here, which will probably vary from case to case, as after all some compromise will be required when religious institutions run public businesses - just as I as a private citizen may be required to make compromises with my beliefs if I run a public business.  So this particular case must be justified on its own merits, not lumped in with the set argument, because I am 99% sure you believe that this argument has limits.  So it must be justified - why should the Church be able to ignore labor law in this case?



I agree that religious liberties can and have been trumped by civil law, including employment law.  However, in this case, we're talking about a wall of separation that has stood the test of time and has not been an issue with the state until now; and surprise, surprise, it's during an election, and apparently brought up for the purposes of securing the vote of a particular segment of the population.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345.html

So it's not about the state suddenly deciding after all these years that you know what?  The Lumpovians need to be providing Dental Care to their employees, even if it is against their religion.  No, it's new, and it's about President Wassamattayou's upcoming election.



> On a separate note, I also find it suspicious that a tenet of freedom involves the freedom to treat other people a certain way in a way that impacts their life and livelihood.  Freedom is fundamentally centered in the self.  I would have to think more though on if that thought holds up.



Fair enough.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

Monroe said:


> I don't live in the US. But it seems a religion is making up for government failure to provide adequate medical services. I don't believe religion has a place in medicine. The fact that a religion has to step up and take care of people that your government doesn't take care of seems to prove that privatized medicine is a complete sham.




I don't live in the US either, I don't pretend to understand this thread, it's outside my experience and knowledge hence I'm not commenting but just reading.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 3, 2012)

Monroe said:


> I don't live in the US. But it seems a religion is making up for government failure to provide adequate medical services. I don't believe religion has a place in medicine. The fact that a religion has to step up and take care of people that your government doesn't take care of seems to prove that privatized medicine is a complete sham.



The Catholic Church provides social and medical services in as many countries as will let them do so.  It's part of what Catholics see as their mission.  We believe Jesus said to feed His children, to clothe them, to heal the sick.  The Catholic Church as many problems and it is entirely fair to bring them up and demand that they fix those issues and hold them responsible for the wrong they have done and continue to do.  But the Catholic Church does believe and does perform good works as part of its mandate.

http://www.caritas-socialaction.org.uk/

The Catholic Church generally works with governments to pick up the slack and help in any way they can, within the bounds of our own faith requirements (such as the issue about not providing abortions or birth control).


----------



## Monroe (Feb 4, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope I read clearly what you wrote.  Planned parenthoods are not hospitals.  Are you suggesting you want planned parenthoods to now become full service hospital?  That's not their mission.



Obviously planned parenthoods aren't hospitals. @@ Christian groups run crisis pregnancy "clinics". I don't approve of these clinics anymore than I approve of catholic hospitals. It would be inappropriate if there were muslim hospitals or buddhist hospitals. Religion has no place in medicince, medical centers or clinics of any kind.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I don't live in the US either, I don't pretend to understand this thread, it's outside my experience and knowledge hence I'm not commenting but just reading.



My husband and children have dual Canadian/American citizenship. I've quite a few ties to the US and Canadian media is swamped by American media. When I lived in Europe, I didn't attempt to understand what the hell was going on. When we were deciding whether to move to the US for a career opportunity after living in Canada for some time, I was very interested in understanding it.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 4, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Catholic Church provides social and medical services in as many countries as will let them do so.  It's part of what Catholics see as their mission.  We believe Jesus said to feed His children, to clothe them, to heal the sick.  The Catholic Church as many problems and it is entirely fair to bring them up and demand that they fix those issues and hold them responsible for the wrong they have done and continue to do.  But the Catholic Church does believe and does perform good works as part of its mandate.
> 
> http://www.caritas-socialaction.org.uk/
> 
> The Catholic Church generally works with governments to pick up the slack and help in any way they can, within the bounds of our own faith requirements (such as the issue about not providing abortions or birth control).



Religion can do charitable work outside of medicine. Seeing as it can't keep it's dirty mitts outside of reproductive rights and can't fulfill obligations as employers, it shouldn't be employing people.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 4, 2012)

Monroe said:


> Obviously planned parenthoods aren't hospitals. @@ Christian groups run crisis pregnancy "clinics". I don't approve of these clinics anymore than I approve of catholic hospitals. It would be inappropriate if there were muslim hospitals or buddhist hospitals. Religion has no place in medicince, medical centers or clinics of any kind.



Really?

That's odd to me.  Historically, most hospitals were founded and run by religious orders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital



> Historically, hospitals were often founded and funded by religious orders or charitable individuals and leaders. Today, hospitals are largely staffed by professional physicians, surgeons, and nurses, whereas in the past, this work was usually performed by the founding religious orders or by volunteers. However, there are various Catholic religious orders, such as the Alexians and the Bon Secours Sisters, which still focus on hospital ministry today.





> In the United States the traditional hospital is a non-profit hospital, usually sponsored by a religious denomination. One of the earliest of these "almshouses" in what would become the United States was started by William Penn in Philadelphia in 1713. These hospitals are tax-exempt due to their charitable purpose, but provide only a minimum of charitable medical care. They are supplemented by large public hospitals in major cities and research hospitals often affiliated with a medical school. The largest public hospital system in America is the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which includes Bellevue Hospital, the oldest U.S. hospital, affiliated with New York University Medical School. In the late twentieth century, chains of for-profit hospitals arose in the United States. The decline in the membership of religious orders has changed the status of Catholic hospitals.[36]



What's really funny is that it is a Catch-22.  Many criticize religious people for not living by our own principles, like giving alms to the poor, healing the sick, and so on.  Yet when we do, we're excoriated for it.  Atheists ***** and moan because so-called 'Catholic' hospitals aren't Catholic ENOUGH, while at the same time complaining that they are Catholic AT ALL.

Well, let me put it this way.  Religious, including Catholics, do a lot to help.  But yes, we do it based on our own moral values and standards, and we don't apologize for that.  If you think that's terrible, that's your problem, not ours.

But I get a little tired of hearing it.  Oh, the Catholics are horrible, their priests are all child molesters, their Pope was a Nazi, and they don't live by their own principles.  And when we DO live by our own principles, well, that's terrible too.

You hate Catholics.  We get it.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## billc (Feb 4, 2012)

Yes, they blame all priests for being molestors or those who protect them, and yet they send their children to public schools everyday.  If you compare the rate of child molestation by teachers to that of priests, all those complaining about catholicism would be forced to pull their kids out of public schools and home school them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 4, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, they blame all priests for being molestors or those who protect them, and yet they send their children to public schools everyday.  If you compare the rate of child molestation by teachers to that of priests, all those complaining about catholicism would be forced to pull their kids out of public schools and home school them.



And let's not even start talking about martial arts instructors.  I'm sorry, but all you have to do is Google "karate arrested" and there's a new story EVERY SINGLE DAY.  A lot more predator martial arts instructors being arrested than priests; but we just refuse to talk about that here; we pretend it is not happening.  Sound familiar at all?  Let's all point out the problem with Catholics.


----------



## billc (Feb 4, 2012)

In my life as a martial artist I have known three instructors who were arrested for some form of inappropriate contact with children.  I also have known a lot more who were great people.  Should people stop teaching martial arts?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 4, 2012)

billcihak said:


> In my life as a martial artist I have known three instructors who were arrested for some form of inappropriate contact with children.  I also have known a lot more who were great people.  Should people stop teaching martial arts?



Well, that's exactly the point.  I think any martial artist here would say that you cannot judge martial arts by the instructors who have done horrible things, and that there are a lot of positive effects of martial arts than negative - and I'd agree.  But ask them to apply that same logic to a group they already dislike, say, Catholics, and nope, the entire Catholic institution is evil from bottom to top, and you can't even have a discussion about anything with the word 'Catholic' in it without them running off at the mouth with their hatred and dislike of organized religion in general, and Catholics in particular.  Many of these, of course, are on MY side of the fence when it comes to pointing out that you can't paint all Islam with the same brush because of a tiny fraction of a minority that are militant or terrorists.  I guess it all comes down to how you see your world.  If you dislike group A, then anything bad they've ever done is proof enough to hate them with an undying passion.


----------



## billc (Feb 4, 2012)

Goodnight Bill.  Good posts on the topic.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 4, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Really?
> 
> That's odd to me.  Historically, most hospitals were founded and run by religious orders.
> 
> ...



Historically schools were often run by religious sects. Now we have public schools. Every child has a right to non-religious school. The difference being, in some areas your choices are the catholic hospital or the catholic hospital. Or in an emergency only the Catholic hospital is in close proximity. That shouldn't be the situation. None of the hospitals should be catholic. 

I don't give a crap what catholics do or don't do within their churches. I'm not sending my kids to church so I don't need to worry about your priests and what not. I care that when a religious groups pushes their way into medicine and as employers, they demand that patients and employee's live by their morals. I don't find that acceptable.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 4, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, they blame all priests for being molestors or those who protect them, and yet they send their children to public schools everyday.  If you compare the rate of child molestation by teachers to that of priests, all those complaining about catholicism would be forced to pull their kids out of public schools and home school them.



I actually did research homeschooling and considered it. Excellent outcomes with good homeschooling communities to work with. But really, the most anti-catholic people I know are those who grew up in the catholic church. I'm pretty indifferent to catholicism, I haven't had personally good or bad experiences. I have just have issues when religions have too much influence on the public domain.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 4, 2012)

Ive been a cop for 10 years.  Ive met alot of injured people and never once has someone asked me who runs the hospital or dont send me to that christian hospital.  Most people are greatful.  But its easy for you to bash them when you sitting comfortably in front of your keyboard I'd bet you'd sing a different tune when a catholic hospital saved you or your families lives 



Monroe said:


> Historically schools were often run by religious sects. Now we have public schools. Every child has a right to non-religious school. The difference being, in some areas your choices are the catholic hospital or the catholic hospital. Or in an emergency only the Catholic hospital is in close proximity. That shouldn't be the situation. None of the hospitals should be catholic.
> 
> I don't give a crap what catholics do or don't do within their churches. I'm not sending my kids to church so I don't need to worry about your priests and what not. I care that when a religious groups pushes their way into medicine and as employers, they demand that patients and employee's live by their morals. I don't find that acceptable.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 4, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Ive been a cop for 10 years.  Ive met alot of injured people and never once has someone asked me who runs the hospital or dont send me to that christian hospital.  Most people are greatful.  But its easy for you to bash them when you sitting comfortably in front of your keyboard I'd bet you'd sing a different tune when a catholic hospital saved you or your families lives



If it wasn't a catholic hospital, the public would find a way to fund a public hospital.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 4, 2012)

Monroe said:


> Historically schools were often run by religious sects. Now we have public schools. Every child has a right to non-religious school. The difference being, in some areas your choices are the catholic hospital or the catholic hospital. Or in an emergency only the Catholic hospital is in close proximity. That shouldn't be the situation. None of the hospitals should be catholic.
> 
> I don't give a crap what catholics do or don't do within their churches. I'm not sending my kids to church so I don't need to worry about your priests and what not. I care that when a religious groups pushes their way into medicine and as employers, they demand that patients and employee's live by their morals. I don't find that acceptable.



First, if you accept freedom of religion, you have to accept that some religions tell them to 'do good works', including feeding, clothing, and housing the homeless and taking in orphans, as well as providing medical care.  If you don't accept that, then you don't accept religious freedom.

Second, oh yeah, how dare those nasty Christians try to help society by providing food, clothes, shelter and medical care.  The bastards.

And third, as I've said, I find it really funny, not to mention hypocritical, that when Christians don't provide ENOUGH food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, they're criticized for that, too.

But ultimately, Christians and other religious organizations do a lot of good in the world.  Sorry you don't like it.  No, I take it back.  I'm not sorry you don't like it.  I think your attitude is sick and warped.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 4, 2012)

Monroe said:


> If it wasn't a catholic hospital, the public would find a way to fund a public hospital.


I'd love to see the actual amount of money the dreaded Christians give to charity worldwide each year matched by any 10 governments. 
Those bastards are always doing nice things and expecting nothing more than a thank you.


----------



## billc (Feb 4, 2012)

Actually, they don't even expect a thank you.  They do it out of the kindness in their hearts and a need to help people.  A polite thank you is nice though.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2012)

Just an aside...here we usually say Roman Catholics but I notice it's always 'Catholics' on here, are you just shortening it or do you not use  'Roman'?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Just an aside...here we usually say Roman Catholics but I notice it's always 'Catholics' on here, are you just shortening it or do you not use  'Roman'?


Great question. I have no idea, but, anyone who claims to be able to differentiate between each and every denomination of Christianity is either a liar or a fool.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Just an aside...here we usually say Roman Catholics but I notice it's always 'Catholics' on here, are you just shortening it or do you not use  'Roman'?



When I say 'Catholic', I generally mean the Roman Catholic Church unless I specify otherwise.  Although there are many churches that are 'Catholic', including those in communion with the Holy See and those associated with the Eastern Orthodox or other rites, in the USA, the Roman Catholic church is the largest 'Catholic' component.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First, if you accept freedom of religion, you have to accept that some religions tell them to 'do good works', including feeding, clothing, and housing the homeless and taking in orphans, as well as providing medical care.  If you don't accept that, then you don't accept religious freedom.
> 
> Second, oh yeah, how dare those nasty Christians try to help society by providing food, clothes, shelter and medical care.  The bastards.
> 
> ...



I've never criticised a religious group for not giving enough. 

How would you respond if your neighbourhood hospital was Seikh? Would you feel comfortable that your medical choices were limited to a religion that you didn't subscribe to? Other religions help the needy. 

I think you have difficult time accepting that not everyone wants their medical choices controlled by your religious beliefs.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 5, 2012)

Monroe said:


> Historically schools were often run by religious sects. Now we have public schools. Every child has a right to non-religious school. The difference being, in some areas your choices are the catholic hospital or the catholic hospital. Or in an emergency only the Catholic hospital is in close proximity. That shouldn't be the situation. None of the hospitals should be catholic.



Wow.  This ties right in with something I posted in another thread where there is this misconceived notion that "Freedom of Religion" really means "Freedom From Religion".


----------



## Monroe (Feb 5, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Actually, they don't even expect a thank you.  They do it out of the kindness in their hearts and a need to help people.  A polite thank you is nice though.



I don't need to thank them. Aside from showing up to weddings and a funeral, I haven't had need from a Catholic church. But I have received social services provided by my tax dollars in Canada and my taxes in the UK. Seems religious people are happy to pay tithes to a religion that only gives social funds strictly according to their rules. But the idea of paying taxes to do the same work but not according to their set of rules, they get their knickers in a twist.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 5, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Wow.  This ties right in with something I posted in another thread where there is this misconceived notion that "Freedom of Religion" really means "Freedom From Religion".



So you're A-okay with all the schools in your neighbourhood becoming Pagan? It shouldn't bother you if the majority of people in your country are Pagan right?


----------



## granfire (Feb 5, 2012)

Monroe said:


> So you're A-okay with all the schools in your neighbourhood becoming Pagan? It shouldn't bother you if the majority of people in your country are Pagan right?



Paganism is a religion, too.
Should stay out of schools.

We are having elections coming up for the board of education...one runs on the platform of 'putting the bible back in schools' when they only have a handful of subjects anyhow...if you want your kids religious, you take care of that. That's called _Bible School _on Sunday morning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

Monroe said:


> I've never criticised a religious group for not giving enough.



But many do. In fact, a major atheist organization responds to what they claim is the accusation 'how many hospitals have atheists built' by pointing out that Christians don't actually give enough.  So this is a knife that cuts both ways, even if you're not holding the sword yourself.



> How would you respond if your neighbourhood hospital was Seikh? Would you feel comfortable that your medical choices were limited to a religion that you didn't subscribe to? Other religions help the needy.



No problem.  I have been treated in a Jewish hospital.



> I think you have difficult time accepting that not everyone wants their medical choices controlled by your religious beliefs.



Not at all.  In fact, the opposite.  I have a difficult time accepting that religious groups that wish to contribute to the well-being of society by giving alms, food, shelter, and medical care should not be allowed to do so because they have some restrictions based on their religious beliefs.  I'm not suggesting that society accept the restrictions religions place on their own faithful; I'm rather suggesting that it's none of society's business.  As you have pointed out yourself, you have plenty of choices that don't involve receiving care at a religious-based health care organization.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

Monroe said:


> So you're A-okay with all the schools in your neighbourhood becoming Pagan? It shouldn't bother you if the majority of people in your country are Pagan right?



I was born and raised Catholic, and spent a decade as a Wiccan before returning to my Catholic beliefs. Why would it bother me?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

granfire said:


> Paganism is a religion, too.
> Should stay out of schools.
> 
> We are having elections coming up for the board of education...one runs on the platform of 'putting the bible back in schools' when they only have a handful of subjects anyhow...if you want your kids religious, you take care of that. That's called _Bible School _on Sunday morning.



As a Christian, I agree with this 100%.  Religion has no place in public schools.  There are private religious schools where parents can send their children if they wish them to be taught religious beliefs or values in a school setting.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But many do. In fact, a major atheist organization responds to what they claim is the accusation 'how many hospitals have atheists built' by pointing out that Christians don't actually give enough. So this is a knife that cuts both ways, even if you're not holding the sword yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What was the food like?


----------



## Monroe (Feb 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But many do. In fact, a major atheist organization responds to what they claim is the accusation 'how many hospitals have atheists built' by pointing out that Christians don't actually give enough.  So this is a knife that cuts both ways, even if you're not holding the sword yourself.
> 
> *Atheists don't have a church that we meet up at. I did donate money towards the new hospital they built in my community 3 years ago.* *It's not an "atheist" hospital. I felt that my taxes should go towards building hospitals and if not enough money was available for the hospital, we would need to pay more taxes locally to fund it. *
> 
> ...


 *Except not every community has the same options. There are  smaller communities with only a religious hospital to go to and in an  emergency, I could be in an area where only a religious hospital is  available. When you have hospitals refusing to offer plan B to rape  victims, it's a problem. *


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 5, 2012)

[Its not the govts job to provide social programs.  Unfortunately people are to damn lazy to take care of themselves they allow the govt to run their lives for them.  They have taken programs designed to be temporary emergency help and now live for generations on these programs.  They said on the local news today over 50% of people on unemployment in the US right now are on long term unemployment and have been for over a year.  If you can't find a job in a year your not trying hard enough. So your right I have no problem giving to my church every week but I don't want to pay more in taxes to be waisted on lazy people that wont even try to help themselves 



Monroe said:


> I don't need to thank them. Aside from showing up to weddings and a funeral, I haven't had need from a Catholic church. But I have received social services provided by my tax dollars in Canada and my taxes in the UK. Seems religious people are happy to pay tithes to a religion that only gives social funds strictly according to their rules. But the idea of paying taxes to do the same work but not according to their set of rules, they get their knickers in a twist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

Monroe said:


> *Except not every community has the same options. There are  smaller communities with only a religious hospital to go to and in an  emergency, I could be in an area where only a religious hospital is  available. When you have hospitals refusing to offer plan B to rape  victims, it's a problem. *



First, I'm not aware of those circumstances.  Second, "Plan B" is not a medical emergency treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel



> Emergency contraception
> Levonorgestrel is used in emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), both in a combined Yuzpe regimen which includes estrogen, and as a levonorgestrel-only method. The levonorgestrel-only method uses levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (as a single dose or as two .75 mg doses 12 hours apart) *taken within 3 days of unprotected sex*, with one study indicating that beginning as late as 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse could be effective. There are many brand names of levonorgestrel-only ECPs, including: Escapelle, Plan B, Levonelle, NorLevo, Postinor-2, i-pill, "Next Choice" and 72-HOURS.[4]



Third, not all religious hospitals refuse the use of such treatment in all circumstances, even when against the principles of that religion:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pr...-lobbies-texas-catholic-hospitals-on-abortif/



> October 19, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A large Catholic hospital network in Texas is prescribing the abortifacient &#8220;morning-after pill.&#8221; Seton Catholic hospitals decided to provide the abortifacient Plan B emergency contraception to sexual assault victims after lobbying by NARAL Pro-Choice Texas.



And fourth, you're conflating (intentionally?) the new rule being imposed on religious employers by the Obama Administration.  This is NOT the medical treatment provided, but the medical insurance provided to employees of religious organizations.

So it has nothing to do with providing 'morning after' pills to rape victims; it has to do with providing health insurance to employees of religious organizations that covers both contraceptives and abortions.

I wonder why you keep side-tracking this discussion by changing it to something it's not?


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 5, 2012)

Monroe said:


> So you're A-okay with all the schools in your neighbourhood becoming Pagan? It shouldn't bother you if the majority of people in your country are Pagan right?



Yep, if it's what the people want... If I disagree with what they are doing, I can exercise my option to send my kid elsewhere or home school 'em.  Bottom line... not my place to say "Oh boo hoo, *I* don't want *my* kid exposed to that so you all need to do what *I* say"


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 5, 2012)

You keep brining up rape kits at hospitals and not providing the pregnancy drugs.  I've never know a rape kit to come with the drugs to begin with.  Unless there is more then one rape kit.  Only kits I know of are for evidence collection, dna swabs, hair samples, pictures, physical exams ect.  The birth control drugs are something you would speak to your regular doctor about


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First, I'm not aware of those circumstances. Second, "Plan B" is not a medical emergency treatment.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel
> 
> ...




To be honest I was wondering what it was actually about, not knowing the American health service etc the discussion was going over my head. I see the problem now.

Who on earth decided to call it 'Plan B' emergency morning after pills, somewhat tacky.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> To be honest I was wondering what it was actually about, not knowing the American health service etc the discussion was going over my head. I see the problem now.



There have been plenty of battles between states and the federal government and religious organizations with regard to providing actual health care; some have become quite heated.  Pharmacists have refused to sell certain products, even though they are legal.  Hospitals have refused to provide abortions or birth control.  In some cases, even non-religious hospitals have refused to provide certain drugs and procedures, including the 'morning after' pill.  I expect these battles will continue.

Nevertheless, that battle is not the current situation.  The recent issue is only to do with the fact that the federal government has decided not to extend the traditional 'religious exemption' to religious institutions; those that provide health insurance to their employees will have to pay for coverage that provides both contraception and abortions.  Those that provide their own self-financed health care are literally being required to pay for abortions, which conflict with their religious beliefs.



> Who on earth decided to call it 'Plan B' emergency morning after pills, somewhat tacky.



I believe the idea originally was not that it was a tool to be used in rape cases, but rather in cases where consensual sex happens and the next morning there is some regret that contraceptives were not used proactively.  In any case, I agree, not an ideal moniker.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 5, 2012)

I think it simply hinges on definition. Is a hospital run by Catholics a religious institution or an institution run by a religious order? 

Simply put, can Catholic hospitals refuse employment to non-Catholics because they are not Catholic? That usually makes the distinction.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> I think it simply hinges on definition. Is a hospital run by Catholics a religious institution or an institution run by a religious order?
> 
> Simply put, can Catholic hospitals refuse employment to non-Catholics because they are not Catholic? That usually makes the distinction.



Catholic hospitals do not hire only Catholics.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Catholic hospitals do not hire only Catholics.




But would they be able to refuse employment solely on the basis that the person is not a Catholic without being sued? 

Here's an example. My synagogue can actively turn down non-Jewish applicants without fear of being brought in front of a Human Rights complaint. My wife works for a major Jewish organization. Many non-Jews work there, and the closest to only hiring Jews they can come is requiring in depth knowledge of the Jewish community for certain positions. Both are Jewish organizations. Only one can be considered religious.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 5, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> But would they be able to refuse employment solely on the basis that the person is not a Catholic without being sued?



I don't know.  I know that they do not require only Catholics as employees.



> Here's an example. My synagogue can actively turn down non-Jewish applicants without fear of being brought in front of a Human Rights complaint. My wife works for a major Jewish organization. Many non-Jews work there, and the closest to only hiring Jews they can come is requiring in depth knowledge of the Jewish community for certain positions. Both are Jewish organizations. Only one can be considered religious.



http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/02/should-catholic-institutions-employ-non-catholics


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> But would they be able to refuse employment solely on the basis that the person is not a Catholic without being sued?
> 
> Here's an example. My synagogue can actively turn down non-Jewish applicants without fear of being brought in front of a Human Rights complaint. My wife works for a major Jewish organization. Many non-Jews work there, and the closest to only hiring Jews they can come is requiring in depth knowledge of the Jewish community for certain positions. Both are Jewish organizations. Only one can be considered religious.



While I do not know for sure, I don't think so -- unless being Catholic is a BFOQ (Bona-fide Occupational Qualification, Canada's equivalent is a BFOR).  Its possible for a Catholic hospital to require that a priest be Catholic or that the cantor for masses celebrated on site be Catholic, but not for a doctor to be Catholic or a records-keeper be Catholic.  

When I worked for the First Church of Christ, Scientist, many of my duties were completely secular, such as news production.  Others were church business, such as tape duplication.  I did a lot of dubbing of spoken-word material on to cassette, for example.  No knowledge of the religion was required to make a good recording.  The church recorded material in several languages at the time -- the bigger challenge was getting to know what the different languages sounded like so I could ensure that I didn't record the tapes backwards or could catch the mistake of a pitch setting gone haywire.  One of my first big "learning experiences" was dubbing an entire worship service in German, backwards...but not realizing anything was wrong when I checked the recording    That was humbling. 

Certainly, the church wanted to see work get done without a big hassle or debate over every production project that was church business.  I never gave them such hassle, even though I did not necessarily agree with the teaching.  I did most certainly accept their health insurance and made good use of it.


----------



## granfire (Feb 6, 2012)

Carol said:


> One of my first big "learning experiences" was dubbing an entire worship service in German, backwards...but not realizing anything was wrong when I checked the recording    That was humbling.



I suppose you used a few words then you didn't know you knew! HIMMEL comes to mind! :lol:


----------



## billc (Feb 6, 2012)

I believe someone mentioned the catholic church not dealing with it's problems with it's employees...well, let's take a look at how the government school system deals with it's employees...

http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/...-health-benefits-not-his-first-investigation/


----------



## Carol (Feb 6, 2012)

granfire said:


> I suppose you used a few words then you didn't know you knew! HIMMEL comes to mind! :lol:



Oh yes!!!  At least -- I was saying them to myself.  You know, church property -- its not nice to say some of those words out loud.  Of course, that also meant you didn't get them spoken in your direction, either


----------

