blueadept Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) I imagine that most people think it's a moral issue--and that it's morally wrong not to help rape victims have access to the morning after pill.In my CCD class, I'm teaching 'Theology of the Body' which deals with abstinence, waiting for marriage and making good choices in your life. I'm using Pam Stenzel's material on this and I believe she offers a unique view since she's thankful her mom didn't make a choice like the 'morning after pill' or have an abortion since her father was a rapist. She hopes one day to meet her mother so that she could thank her for choosing adoption. In her videos, she admits to being a theology teacher's nightmare where it says 'before you were born, I knew you.' She would get in their face and ask if that applied to her.Her is her website. http://pamstenzel.com/An awesome lady with a great message for our youth. I've met 3 folks that fall into this category, they all seem to have a different viewpoint. Edited February 2, 2012 by blueadept 2
Storm Rider Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 In my CCD class, I'm teaching 'Theology of the Body' which deals with abstinence, waiting for marriage and making good choices in your life. I'm using Pam Stenzel's material on this and I believe she offers a unique view since she's thankful her mom didn't make a choice like the 'morning after pill' or have an abortion since her father was a rapist. She hopes one day to meet her mother so that she could thank her for choosing adoption. In her videos, she admits to being a theology teacher's nightmare where it says 'before you were born, I knew you.' She would get in their face and ask if that applied to her.Her is her website. http://pamstenzel.com/An awesome lady with a great message for our youth. I've met 3 folks that fall into this category, they all seem to have a different viewpoint.I would recommend to anyone to read any of the books put out on John Paul II Theology of the Body. I read those by Christopher West. What an outstanding individual and John Paul's theology is very inspiring to anyone. He has a wonderful perspective on the sacredness of the human body and the marriage bond. A LDS will have to overlook some of the analogies JP uses regarding the Catholic Church, but there is a lot of truth to be learned form him. In many respects I view JP II as one of the great prophets of these latter days. A giant intellect that was tempered by humility and a true discipleship to Jesus Christ. I am not familiar with Pam Stenzel, but I would take a course from Christopher West any day.
Stargazer Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 No. Insurance premiums go to the insurance company, who deposits the money into an account. At that point, the money becomes the property of the insurance company. Later, if the patient wants, the insurance company will pay for the patient's healthcare using the insurance company's own money.If I pay you to shoot my enemy, and you actually go and pull the trigger, who murdered him? What you're describing is, in the context at bar, money laundering. Oh, so the money is now the insurance company's, so the Catholic Church is no longer involved! How convenient. Apparently the RCC considers that if they pay someone to abort your baby it is the same as they themselves aborted your baby. I believe I agree with them.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 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.It is also the federal funding of abortion which causes those who do not believe in the practice to fund it. I had a very long conversation with a good friend about this Monday. We shared much common ground.
Analytics Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) It is also the federal funding of abortion which causes those who do not believe in the practice to fund it. I had a very long conversation with a good friend about this Monday. We shared much common ground.Some of my loved ones are Quakers who don't believe in war, and an obscenely high percentage of their tax dollars go towards funding war and the military industrial complex. Edited February 2, 2012 by Analytics
saemo Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 The LDS Church not only employees tens of thousands of people, it actually owns its own insurance company that provides them with health insurance benefits. Is the Church following the Catholic's example and going to war over presumably being forced to offer these health insurance benenefits to Church employees?Back in the day when I was insured by DMBA, they did not cover contraceptives unless you had at least four children (or six? Can't recall exactly.)
saemo Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 The Catholics now, who is next. Following is a letter the Catholic Church requested be read in all their churches.Just a minor correction, Bp. Sample is requiring this letter be read in all parishes of the dioces of Marquette. He is of course standing as one with all the Bishops of the U.S.http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) calmoriah:The North did not invade the South. The CSA(Confederate States of America) fired first. Further the CSA were never recognized as a legal entity. It was always "the states in rebellion". Edited February 2, 2012 by thesometimesaint
mnn727 Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Wrong again tss there isn't a day go by I don't get a solicitation call from a mail order pharmacy. Funny, I've never gotten one in my life. You must have signed up for something.
Jaybear Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 If its an infringement on its First Amendment right, then all the RCC needs to do is convince a federal judge.. If its not, then why should we care? RCC is just trying to make it more expensive for their female EMPLOYEES (not members, not clergy) to purchase birth control(not abortions), which purchase btw is an actual constitutionally protected right (Griswold v Conn.).
saemo Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 If its an infringement on its First Amendment right, then all the RCC needs to do is convince a federal judge.. If its not, then why should we care? RCC is just trying to make it more expensive for their female EMPLOYEES (not members, not clergy) to purchase birth control(not abortions), which purchase btw is an actual constitutionally protected right (Griswold v Conn.).Nothing our Bishops have stated or are standing for prevents a woman from purchasing ABC.
LeSellers Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 RCC is just trying to make it more expensive for their female EMPLOYEES (not members, not clergy) to purchase birth control(not abortions), which purchase btw is an actual constitutionally protected right (Griswold v Conn.).Discouraging acts that are legal and immoral is one of the jobs of a church. (Another, related, job is to define both "immorality" and "immortality".)The outcome of the decision of the Catholic Church not to include contraceptive and "other reproductive services", including abortifacients (e.g., the "morning after pill") may be that her employees pay more for these things, but that does not make the higher price the reason for the decision. Their decision is based on moral principle.Griswold, btw, is not about the Catholic Church or any private organization. The court rejected the principle that a government could restrict access to contraception. Any church or civic group has the power and the right to deny its members (or any portion of its members) access to such drugs and "services" through its insurance policy. From my vantage point, Griswold affirms the private nature of such choices, and makes it beyond the reach of the state to interfere in these private matters, as the current administration is doing.Lehi
LeSellers Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 I think what we have here is others imposing their values on the Catholic Church and its policies. The Catholic church is making a claim that they are being forced to do something that they believe is a moral issue.Indeed.I recall the scripture: We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.That is the fundamental nature of government, especially unconstitutional government, as has been demonstrated by the past 40 or so administrations.Lehi
Jaybear Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Nothing our Bishops have stated or are standing for prevents a woman from purchasing ABC.Making a commodity more expensive an under some situations does in fact prevent access to said commodity.. Discouraging acts that are legal and immoral is one of the jobs of a church. (Another, related, job is to define both "immorality" and "immortality".)As far as I am concerned, they are free to discourage their members from buying birth control. They may even excomunicate members who purchase birth control. IF that is what they choose.When Churches seek to impose thier morality on non mebers, they lose my sympathy. Griswold, btw, is not about the Catholic Church or any private organization. The court rejected the principle that a government could restrict access to contraception. Any church or civic group has the power and the right to deny its members (or any portion of its members) access to such drugs and "services" through its insurance policy. From my vantage point, Griswold affirms the private nature of such choices, and makes it beyond the reach of the state to interfere in these private matters, as the current administration is doing.I am familiar with Griswold. You assertion about the "rights and powers" is simply wrong. All employers have to follow the law. Churches have a limited execption that applies to employees who are part of their clergy. The RCC wants to expand the scope of that exemption so that these Churches can reach their tentacles into the bedrooms of their nonmember employees who like most catholics I know don't agree that birth control in immoral.
blueadept Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 I am familiar with Griswold. You assertion about the "rights and powers" is simply wrong. All employers have to follow the law. Churches have a limited execption that applies to employees who are part of their clergy. The RCC wants to expand the scope of that exemption so that these Churches can reach their tentacles into the bedrooms of their nonmember employees who like most catholics I know don't agree that birth control in immoral.Which comes first? The government forcing the RCC to provide health insurance it disagrees with due to the contraceptives and morning after pills, OR is the RCC forcing it's tentacles into the bedrooms of nonmember employees. We all believe in separation of Church and State. Why is the state forcing itself upon the church in what IS moral versus what is not moral. For us, we listen to the Pope on issues of faith and morals. I've come to the realization that Christians can't even agree upon what is a "moral' issue which is fine IMO. That's why I don't expect other churches to stand with us on this. So be it. 2
Jaybear Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Which comes first? The government forcing the RCC to provide health insurance it disagrees with due to the contraceptives and morning after pills, OR is the RCC forcing it's tentacles into the bedrooms of nonmember employees. We all believe in separation of Church and State. Why is the state forcing itself upon the church in what IS moral versus what is not moral. For us, we listen to the Pope on issues of faith and morals. I've come to the realization that Christians can't even agree upon what is a "moral' issue which is fine IMO. That's why I don't expect other churches to stand with us on this. So be it.Lets put this in the correct context.The state is not "forcing itself upon the church". The state, through its elected leaders, put in place a law that requires all insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage.It is the RCC that is asking for a super special exemption so that it can provide insurance coverage to its employees which does not have such coverage.Why should the goverment make this exception? Because the party asking for the exception is a church? What if the owner of the business is a devout catholic. Should she have the right to ask for special treatment too.Sorry, but this is NOT a first amendment issue. If you think I am wrong, ask why the RCC doesn't just file a lawsuit declaring that its rights have been violated.RCC has many options. It can sell its business. It can choose not to offer insruance. Or it can try to mount a political campaing to change the law.
blueadept Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Lets put this in the correct context.The state is not "forcing itself upon the church". The state, through its elected leaders, put in place a law that requires all insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage.It is the RCC that is asking for a super special exemption so that it can provide insurance coverage to its employees which does not have such coverage.Why should the goverment make this exception? Because the party asking for the exception is a church? What if the owner of the business is a devout catholic. Should she have the right to ask for special treatment too.Sorry, but this is NOT a first amendment issue. If you think I am wrong, ask why the RCC doesn't just file a lawsuit declaring that its rights have been violated.RCC has many options. It can sell its business. It can choose not to offer insruance. Or it can try to mount a political campaing to change the law. I predict this issue won't be resolved until it gets to the Supreme Court which is a sad state IMHO that 9 judges get to determine if it's a 1st Amendment thing or not. We shall see.
saemo Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Making a commodity more expensive an under some situations does in fact prevent access to said commodity..The price of pharmaceuticals is not determined by Catholic Bishops. If the desire is to regulate health costs, then regulate the pharmaceutical corporations. That is constitutional. Government regulation of religion is not. Edited February 2, 2012 by saemo
saemo Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 All I can say is, I voted for Obama in the last pres. election. This coming election, I will not. Not only because of this but other actions and inactions on his part. This one is just the final straw.
LeSellers Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) All I can say is, I voted for Obama in the last pres. election.You're the one!!This coming election, I will not.Thank goodness for repentance.Lehi Edited February 2, 2012 by LeSellers 1
Jaybear Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 The price of pharmaceuticals is not determined by Catholic Bishops. If the desire is to regulate health costs, then regulate the pharmaceutical corporations. That is constitutional. Government regulation of religion is not.Once again. This is not about the Constitution. There is no colorable arguemnt that the act violates the first amendment. This is a policy issue, not a first amendment issue. All I can say is, I voted for Obama in the last pres. election. This coming election, I will not. Not only because of this but other actions and inactions on his part. This one is just the final straw.Such is your perogative. But you should know that while Governor, Romney denied an exemption to catholic hospitals that would have allowed them to refuse to provide the morning after pill.
Stargazer Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 calmoriah:The North did not invade the South. The CSA(Confederate States of America) fired first. Further the CSA were never recognized as a legal entity. It was always "the states in rebellion".Actually, the North did recognize the South's independence, albeit inadvertantly. Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports as part of the war effort; unfortunately a "blockade" is something done only to foreign states, not one's own country. This act was a de facto, if not a de jure recognition of the CSA. To maintain the idea that they were dealing with a mere rebellion, he should have instead raised import and export tariffs to prohibitively high levels and ordered the US Navy to collect them.But this would not have changed the outcome, of course.
blueadept Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Such is your perogative. But you should know that while Governor, Romney denied an exemption to catholic hospitals that would have allowed them to refuse to provide the morning after pill.I don't believe Romney would view this as a moral issue; therefore, he wouldn't be too sympathetic with the request for the exemption.I'm registered as an Independent but obviously Catholic. I can't say that either Obama or Romney looks very appealing at this point. Edited February 2, 2012 by blueadept
ERayR Posted February 2, 2012 Author Posted February 2, 2012 Making a commodity more expensive an under some situations does in fact prevent access to said commodity.. As far as I am concerned, they are free to discourage their members from buying birth control. They may even excomunicate members who purchase birth control. IF that is what they choose.When Churches seek to impose thier morality on non mebers, they lose my sympathy.I am familiar with Griswold. You assertion about the "rights and powers" is simply wrong. All employers have to follow the law. Churches have a limited execption that applies to employees who are part of their clergy. The RCC wants to expand the scope of that exemption so that these Churches can reach their tentacles into the bedrooms of their nonmember employees who like most catholics I know don't agree that birth control in immoral.Nothing the Catholic Church has done or is doing is making the "commodity" more expensive. All that has happened is that the Church has said "not with our dime". The are not reaching there tentacles into anybody's bedroom. They are simply saying we are not paying for things we believe immoral. 1
ERayR Posted February 2, 2012 Author Posted February 2, 2012 All I can say is, I voted for Obama in the last pres. election. This coming election, I will not. Not only because of this but other actions and inactions on his part. This one is just the final straw.I am glad that you now see what many of us saw 4 years ago. Educate your friends.
Recommended Posts