ERayR Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The Catholics now, who is next. Following is a letter the Catholic Church requested be read in all their churches.Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers,including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture,only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.Sincerely yours in Christ,+Alexander K. SampleMost Reverend Alexander K. SampleBishop of Marquette
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Unfortunately for our good Catholic friends this letter is pure bunk. It is the Catholic church that is trying to restrict the use of and availability of contraceptives not only to their fellow Catholic women(The overwhelming majority of Catholic women in this country use contraceptives at some point in the lives), but nonCatholic employees, and nonCatholic patients at Catholic hospitals as well.Would be be comfortable with your pharmacist saying he didn't believe in the Germ Theory of medicine so he won't fill your prescription for life saving antibiotics? 3
Senator Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Other than the government hijacking of the nations healthcare industry.....I don't see what the problem is. Is it simply an increase of cost due to the additional coverages that is causing the angst?Otherwise, if you have religious issues with the items being covered the solution is simple: don't use them. Edited January 31, 2012 by Senator 2
Popular Post selek1 Posted January 31, 2012 Popular Post Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Unfortunately for our good Catholic friends this letter is pure bunk. It is the Catholic church that is trying to restrict the use of and availability of contraceptives not only to their fellow Catholic women(The overwhelming majority of Catholic women in this country use contraceptives at some point in the lives), but nonCatholic employees, and nonCatholic patients at Catholic hospitals as well.Speaking of pure bunk, SometimeSaint's post is pure and unadultered, straight from the source.Rather than restricting the availability of contraceptives and abortifacents, the Catholic Church simply objects to being forced to pay for them.If a Catholic or non-Catholic woman wants condoms, pills, or the morning after pill she can stroll down to her local pharmacy and get it on her own dime.She has absolutely no right to take money out of the Church's offering plate to pay for her choices.Neither she nor the government have the right to force the Church to violate its conscience and pay for services she can provide for herself.Would be be comfortable with your pharmacist saying he didn't believe in the Germ Theory of medicine so he won't fill your prescription for life saving antibiotics?No, I wouldn't. Fortunately, in a free country, I have the choice to take my business elsewhere without impinging upon either party's freedom of religion or freedoms of association.The current administration, however, is unapologetically violating both. Edited January 31, 2012 by selek1 9
ERayR Posted January 31, 2012 Author Posted January 31, 2012 Unfortunately for our good Catholic friends this letter is pure bunk. It is the Catholic church that is trying to restrict the use of and availability of contraceptives not only to their fellow Catholic women(The overwhelming majority of Catholic women in this country use contraceptives at some point in the lives), but nonCatholic employees, and nonCatholic patients at Catholic hospitals as well.Would be be comfortable with your pharmacist saying he didn't believe in the Germ Theory of medicine so he won't fill your prescription for life saving antibiotics?Ah but the Catholic Church is not in the business of dispensing these items. The Catholic Church is not trying to restrict access but do admonish their members not to use them. The question is should the Catholic Church be forced to pay for it. 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 selek1:"I have the choice to take my business elsewhere without impinging upon either party's freedom of religion or freedoms of association".No you don't, particularly if you live in rural areas. If your pharmacist won't fill your prescription what real freedom of choice do you have? What if all ten of your local pharmacists refuse to fill your prescription based on their religious beliefs. What real freedom of choice do you have?Say you were black and living in the South in the 1950's, and 60's. Would you enjoy the "Religious Exemption" applied to you? You can always leave right? Just make sure you never had to stop to eat at a whites only lunchcounter, get gas at a whites only "Service Station", or spend the night at a whites only hotel. 3
BCSpace Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) http://www.worldnews...bortion-stance/In other words, Mr. Obama has done something that is ominous and unprecedented: compelling religious groups to embrace and subsidize free birth control. Catholic universities, hospitals and charities must either betray their fundamental social teachings or drop insurance coverage for their employees, thereby triggering massive financial penalties under Obamacare. The choice is simple: Abandon Catholic doctrine or go out of business.The ruling will not simply devastate the Catholic heath care system and elaborate social network, which includes soup kitchens, adoption centers, immigrant services and parochial schools. It directly assaults and violates the conscience rights of Catholics. The church teaches that contraception is a sin, an immoral attempt to obstruct God’s will of when and whether human life should be created. It is the ultimate embodiment of pride: man trying to act as God. That is why opposition to birth control is at the heart of the Catholic faith. Edited January 31, 2012 by BCSpace
selek1 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 No you don't, particularly if you live in rural areas. If your pharmacist won't fill your prescription what real freedom of choice do you have? This is a red herring and a distraction.There is a vast and insurmountable difference between refusing to provide a service as part of one's lprofessional obligation and forcing someone else to pay for that service.Your analogy is also wildly absurd in context.Unless by "rural areas" you mean "the third world", the hypotheticals you offer are so strained as to border on parody. What if all ten of your local pharmacists refuse to fill your prescription based on their religious beliefs. What real freedom of choice do you have? Why, then I'd hit that notorious bastion of capitalist evil known as Walmart and get my prescriptions filled for half the price.Say you were black and living in the South in the 1950's, and 60's. Would you enjoy the "Religious Exemption" applied to you? You can always leave right? Just make sure you never had to stop to eat at a whites only lunchcounter, get gas at a whites only "Service Station", or spend the night at a whites only hotel. It's rather revealing that these kinds of overblown rhetoric and specious analogy are your first and only recourse.The simple fact of the matter is that we're NOT living in the 50's or 60's, or under racial segregation, or even (yet) as second-class citizens in a secular oligarchy run by progressive liberals.Absurd and disingenuous hypotheticals notwithstanding, contraceptives are cheaply available on nearly every street corner- and ironically, are being given away for free to those too young to legally consent to sex.Your assertion that Catholics are attempting to restrict access to contraception is a bare-faced lie.Should the Catholics win their case, that victory will not remove a single condom from the streets, nor prevent any woman from having quick and inexpensive access to birth control.But a Catholic victory will protect Americans' freedom of conscience and preserve and maintain the dignity of human agency and the fredoms of worship and association.All of the shrill screaming and nigh-frantic sleight of hand cannot distract from the core facts of this case:Namely, that the State is using the threat of (legal) violence to coerce religious believers to provide services to a third party which they (the believers) find morally reprehensible and ethically repugnant.The services that the government is demanding be provided are readily available through private means and indeed through a government discount. There is simply no logical reason to force private employers to pay for these services in violation of their religious principles.This attempt by the administration- imposed by executive fiat and absent an actual legal requirement- amounts to nothing more than an a blatant and willful violation of the Constitutional rights of religious believers, and a contemtuous disregard of the clear meaning of the Constitution itself. It is a barefaced attempt to forcibly confiscate the goods and property of one group to benefit another.Forcing one person to work against their will for the benefit of another is as good a definition of slavery as any other. 3
LeSellers Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) This attempt by the administration- imposed by executive fiat and absent an actual legal requirement- amounts to nothing more than an a blatant and willful violation of the Constitutional rights of religious believers, and a contemtuous disregard of the clear meaning of the Constitution itself.It is a barefaced attempt to forcibly confiscate the goods and property of one group to benefit another.It has another, even more nefarious impetus:Because "the administration" knew the Catholic Church would have to take this stand and because it has the state's lethal power (more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than the Catholic Church today), the only option left for Rome is to stop providing health insurance. Thus, the employees of the hospitals and whatever other Catholic entities are affected will have to turn to the state to get that important coverage. It's a ploy to get more people enrolled under the thumb of the state, whatever other of their purposes it may serve.Forcing one person to work against their will for the benefit of another is as good a definition of slavery as any other.Indeed, it's the only definition that makes sense.Lehi Edited January 31, 2012 by LeSellers 2
BCSpace Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 My impression is that a plurality, if not a majority, of American Catholics are not in agreement with their church's doctrine in this matter. And so we can expect much less support in opposing what the administration has done than one would hope for. Perhaps it is just a vocal majority though and in that case, you have to motivate the silent majority to the polls.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) selek1:"I have the choice to take my business elsewhere without impinging upon either party's freedom of religion or freedoms of association".No you don't, particularly if you live in rural areas. If your pharmacist won't fill your prescription what real freedom of choice do you have? What if all ten of your local pharmacists refuse to fill your prescription based on their religious beliefs. What real freedom of choice do you have?Say you were black and living in the South in the 1950's, and 60's. Would you enjoy the "Religious Exemption" applied to you? You can always leave right? Just make sure you never had to stop to eat at a whites only lunchcounter, get gas at a whites only "Service Station", or spend the night at a whites only hotel.Can you, for once just stop being a liberal first?We know that Obama is your man and he and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services muffed up. Stop trying to deflect that. Edited January 31, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
selek1 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Can you, for once just stop being a liberal first?I'm kinda surprised I'm saying this, but I think this goes too far.Unlike some others on the board, SS tends to inform his political stance on upon his religious convictions rather than the other way round. I agree that the arguments he's offered in this thread are specious at best, but I have no doubt where his true allegiance lies.
LeSellers Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 My impression is that a plurality, if not a majority, of American Catholics are not in agreement with their church's doctrine in this matter. That well may be true, but it does not mean the Catholic Church must abandon its principles and kowtow to an overarching government edict requiring it act in a manner totally at odds with those principles.We have a first amendment for a reason, and it's not so "the administration" can trample (or trammel) the rights of people or churches.Lehi 1
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 No you don't, particularly if you live in rural areas. If your pharmacist won't fill your prescription what real freedom of choice do you have? What if all ten of your local pharmacists refuse to fill your prescription based on their religious beliefs. What real freedom of choice do you have?I'd open a pharmacy. This is kind of silly. Unless you live amongst a colony of homeopathic quacks there willl be a real pharmacy around somewhere.Say you were black and living in the South in the 1950's, and 60's. Would you enjoy the "Religious Exemption" applied to you? You can always leave right? Just make sure you never had to stop to eat at a whites only lunchcounter, get gas at a whites only "Service Station", or spend the night at a whites only hotel.A different situation. That involves refusing to offer services to people selectively. This situation involves being forced to offer services you choose not to to everyone.I do have a problem with pharmacists individually refusing to dispense treatments on moral grounds. I have the same problem with doctors doing the same thing. Unless the business as a whole (pharmacy or practice) doesn't offer that service anyways.Normally this shouldn't be an issue but health-care is an area the U.S. needs to face up to and make a choice. We either need to switch to pure capitalism and get rid of the artificial price increases health insurance has saddled us with (with some kind of safety net for extreme cases) so prices fall or we need to socialize medicine. This waffling between the two is killing us.My suggestion is for everyone to pay for their own health care unless it exceeds a certain percentage of your family's net income for the year (thinking 10-15%) in which case the government picks up the slack. Health insurance goes away. People can go to the doctor but there is an incentive not to use unnecessary health care. If you are faced with a catastrophic situation you aren't forced into bankruptcy.
ERayR Posted January 31, 2012 Author Posted January 31, 2012 selek1:"I have the choice to take my business elsewhere without impinging upon either party's freedom of religion or freedoms of association".No you don't, particularly if you live in rural areas. If your pharmacist won't fill your prescription what real freedom of choice do you have? What if all ten of your local pharmacists refuse to fill your prescription based on their religious beliefs. What real freedom of choice do you have?Say you were black and living in the South in the 1950's, and 60's. Would you enjoy the "Religious Exemption" applied to you? You can always leave right? Just make sure you never had to stop to eat at a whites only lunchcounter, get gas at a whites only "Service Station", or spend the night at a whites only hotel.Wrong again tss there isn't a day go by I don't get a solicitation call from a mail order pharmacy.
3DOP Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) One shouldn't be forced to provide services or products that violate one's conscience.Unfortunately for our good Catholic friends this letter is pure bunk. It is the Catholic church that is trying to restrict the use of and availability of contraceptives not only to their fellow Catholic women(The overwhelming majority of Catholic women in this country use contraceptives at some point in the lives), but nonCatholic employees, and nonCatholic patients at Catholic hospitals as well.Would be be comfortable with your pharmacist saying he didn't believe in the Germ Theory of medicine so he won't fill your prescription for life saving antibiotics?Maybe the business that you are in should be forced to provide something that Mormons consider sinful?You are correct. The Catholic Church doesn't want to provide ANYONE with contraceptives, sterilizations, or abortions because those are acts which are believed to be sinful. Neither is it acceptable to be indirectly associated with acts agains the faith through insurance policies. You can disagree with the belief, but shouldn't Catholics have the right to lose business because of our wrong ideas about sin? Maybe the Obama administration could make an appeal to how the Church is wrong and try to persuade us that it is good or at least permissible to abort, contracept, and sterilize according to Catholic Tradition. But they don't seem to give it any consideration at all.They just willy nilly declare that Catholics have to cooperate with acts that are considered by us to be mortally sinful. If your pharmacist is willing to lose business for strange convictions, that's his problem, not yours or mine. We can go somewhere else, and so can all non-Catholics for their abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives. Do you think our pharmacist should be forced to provide that which he disagrees with? Edited January 31, 2012 by 3DOP 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I'm kinda surprised I'm saying this, but I think this goes too far.Unlike some others on the board, SS tends to inform his political stance on upon his religious convictions rather than the other way round.I agree that the arguments he's offered in this thread are specious at best, but I have no doubt where his true allegiance lies.I will retract it as it was not what I meant. So I can see how you can write what you did. IOW I agree with you.
LeSellers Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I'd open a pharmacy. This is kind of silly. Unless you live amongst a colony of homeopathic quacks there willl be a real pharmacy around somewhere.I object to the phrase "homeopathic quacks", especially if you are implying that homeopathy is quackery. It is not.However, you raise an important point: the market will prevail. If the only pharmacist in town refuses to dispense antibiotics because he does not belive in the Germ Theory of disease, assuming the rest of the people wanted penicillin and erythromycin, someone else would come in and make the waiting profit for serving the needs of those people.We do not need a lot of regulation, we need a lot of freedom.Lehi Edited January 31, 2012 by LeSellers
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I object to thephrase "homeopathic quacks", especially if you are implying that homeopathy is quckery. It is not.I'm not implying. I'm outright saying. However, you raise an important point: the market will prevail. If the only pharmacist in town refuses to dispense antibiotics because he does not belive in the Germ Theory of disease, assuming the rest of the people wanted penicillin and erythromycin, someone else would come in and make the waiting profit for serving the needs of those people.We do not need a lot of regulation, we need a lot of freedom.Yeah, the market will prevail though I'm not saying that is automatically a good thing. The EPA stepped in and interfered with the free market but I think that was a good thing. 2
LeSellers Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not implying. I'm outright saying.Then you are wrong.Yeah, the market will prevail though I'm not saying that is automatically a good thing. The EPA stepped in and interfered with the free market but I think that was a good thing.And I say you are wrong.Lehi
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 And I say you are wrong.I encourage you to hunt down photos from major industrial areas before the EPA before being too sure of that but we are getting way off-base here.
Calm Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 selek1:"I have the choice to take my business elsewhere without impinging upon either party's freedom of religion or freedoms of association".No you don't, particularly if you live in rural areas. If your pharmacist won't fill your prescription what real freedom of choice do you have? What if all ten of your local pharmacists refuse to fill your prescription based on their religious beliefs. What real freedom of choice do you have?Say you were black and living in the South in the 1950's, and 60's. Would you enjoy the "Religious Exemption" applied to you? You can always leave right? Just make sure you never had to stop to eat at a whites only lunchcounter, get gas at a whites only "Service Station", or spend the night at a whites only hotel.It is not the 50s and 60s. There is always the internet these days.I can see creating a law to protect the few that are actually in that situation so that they can appeal to government when there is a real need, but where the vast majority of US citizens have options to fill all of their medical needs then it seems to me not only inefficient, but unjust to force everyone to comply with standards that are not only unnecessary, but force individuals to act in ways against their personal ethics and morality.
Calm Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 It has another, even more nefarious impetus:Because "the administration" knew the Catholic Church would have to take this stand and because it has the state's lethal power (more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than the Catholic Church today), the only option left for Rome is to stop providing health insurance. Thus, the employees of the hospitals and whatever other Catholic entities are affected will have to turn to the state to get that important coverage. It's a ploy to get more people enrolled under the thumb of the state, whatever other of their purposes it may serve.I don't know if this is the actual reasoning, however it should be no surprise if the Church withdraws from insurance provision as they made their choice to withdraw from offering adoptions services when funding was tied to offering the same services to homosexual couples. I think there is a significant difference in this case though as the insurance provision is not dependent on federal funding as was the adoption services.
Calm Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) My suggestion is for everyone to pay for their own health care unless it exceeds a certain percentage of your family's net income for the year (thinking 10-15%) in which case the government picks up the slack. Health insurance goes away. People can go to the doctor but there is an incentive not to use unnecessary health care. If you are faced with a catastrophic situation you aren't forced into bankruptcy.I would tend to agree with this suggestion if included is a limit on malpractice suits. Canada has much few malpractice suits but their quality of care (as opposed to quantity) is equaled to the States. I don't see threats of extreme amounts of money for damages, etc. affecting the quality of care overall and in fact, due to the increase of costs, it can drive down the availability of care.When in Canada we saw people going to the Emergency Room to treat minor stuff that should have been taken care of in a neighbourhood clinic. I had doctor friends who were specialists that basically worked for free for a quarter of the year because they had reached the limit of what their yearly salary. Those with larger families were forced to move to the States so they could afford to send their kids on missions and to college and they weren't spending all their income on fine living either, they were living in middle to lower middle class housing, etc. Alberta did pretty well overall due to its more conservative approach, allowing for some privatized medicine side by side with socialized (the privatized subsidized the socialized), but we heard from time to time horror stories from back East where patients had died of treatable cancers or heart disease between diagnosis and treatment due to long waiting lists. Edited January 31, 2012 by calmoriah
california boy Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Let's just put it up for a popular vote. The Catholics should be in favor of that approach.
Recommended Posts